Favorable Federal Appellate Ruling in Seventh Circuit (Wisconsin) . . .

[itsApril]

Appeals court smacks down Wisconsin school's anti-transgender discrimination

https://thinkprogress.org/transgender-win-wisconsin-542c6fea92f8
Zack Ford
ThinkProgress.org.
May 30, 2017

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit likely just handed the Supreme Court a new case about a transgender student to consider. The Court's opinion, issued Tuesday, eviscerates a Wisconsin school's arguments for discriminating against one of its students.

"Ashton Whitaker ("Ash"), now a 17-year-old senior, first filed suit against Kenosha Unified School District a little over a year ago, arguing that the school was illegally discriminating against him by prohibiting him from accessing the boys' restrooms. He had previously used the restroom for six months without incident before the new policy was implemented. Ash was instead forced to using single-stall restrooms that were very far away from his classes and that further stigmatized him among his classmates. His bathroom usage was then policed, with the school even considering requiring him to wear bright green wristbands or stickers to easily identify him, though it never actually took that step. . . ."

* * *

Congratulations and thank you, Ash Whitaker!

[itsApril]

It's a unanimous ruling of the three-judge appellate panel.  Here's a link to the Court's ruling, if anyone would like to review it (35 pages):

http://files.eqcf.org/cases/16-3522-82/

From the decision:

"The School District has not demonstrated that it will suffer

any harm from having to comply with the district court's pre‐

liminary injunction order. Nor has it established that the pub‐

lic as a whole will suffer harm. As noted above, before seeking

injunctive relief, Ash used the bathroom for nearly six months

without incident. The School District has not produced any ev‐

idence that any students have ever complained about Ash's

presence in the boys' restroom. Nor have they demonstrated

that Ash's presence has actually caused an invasion of any

other student's privacy. And while the School District claims

that preliminary injunctive relief infringes upon parents' abil‐

ity to direct the education of their children, it offers no evi‐

dence that a parent has ever asserted this right. These claims

are all speculative."

[SophieD]

Skimming the decision quickly, it seems to make a pretty unequivocal case for the right of a transgendered student to use the bathroom of their identified gender - and includes a decision that transgendered status qualifies for protections under the 14th amendment (not just under Title IX).

I hope this decisions holds up.  I wonder if this is likely to go up to SCOTUS?