The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed up a chance to intervene in the debate over bathrooms for transgender students, rejecting an appeal from an Indiana public school district.
Federal appeals courts are divided over whether school policies enforcing restrictions on which bathrooms transgender students can use violate federal law or the Constitution.
In the case the court rejected without comment, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an order granting transgender boys access to the boys’ bathroom. The appeal came from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southwest of Indianapolis.
If the lower courts are divided, isn’t it the job of the Supreme Court to make it clear?
They kinda have made it clear though. By rejecting the appeal, they’re saying that the 7th Circuit Court’s decision stands.
Except the
FourthEleventh Circuit went the other direction with an almost identical Florida school policy, so the question of “Is it ok under the US Constitution for schools to force transgender students to use a particular bathroom?” has a different answer depending on where you live, which is the exact kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to deal with.e; Whoops, had the wrong court and wrong case. That’s been updated now, but for the record here’s the older case I had been linking to
https://www.courthousenews.com/11th-circuit-rules-florida-schools-transgender-bathroom-policy-unconstitutional/
Yeah, well, SCOTUS hasn’t ever been real good at upholding the spirit of the 14th Amendment. I can reel off a long long list of things that SHOULD be the same no matter where you live but somehow aren’t.
Isn’t the Florida case in alignment with the Chicago one? The courts ruled for the transgender kid in both.
Turns out I linked the wrong Florida case, here’s the one I meant to post
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/31/appeals-court-upholds-florida-high-schools-transgender-bathroom-ban-00075985
This article you linked - it gives good reasons why a circuit split is not a problem here. I support trans rights - as I assume you do - but don’t think your point is as well-made as you thought.
Ah, that was the wrong article looking at an older court case, here’s the correct and more recent one,
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/31/appeals-court-upholds-florida-high-schools-transgender-bathroom-ban-00075985
Except that they aren’t overriding the other courts, so really they are saying that it’s up to every circuit to set their own standard.
They’re basically saying it’s grey when trying to apply the constitution to the issue, giving regions their own jurisdiction. It’s how it’s supposed to work, like it or not.
But circuit judges are appointed federally, by the president. They’re not voted on regionally, so they do not represent the will of the region they preside over.
Typically, yes. Now, not so much.
They’re saving all their energy for the upcoming craziness if/when Trump is elected President while in prison.
“Legal precedent would make it almost impossible for us to avoid standing up for a transgender person if we took this case and we couldn’t possibly have that.”
I thought they’ve made it clear that they don’t believe in precedent