Parties in Gavin Grimm’s Supreme Court challenge to school board’s anti-transgender policy file letters on next steps
March 1, 2017
The Supreme Court, on February 23, asked the parties in Gloucester County School Board v. GG to “submit their views on how this case should proceed in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.” The request came in response to the Trump administration withdrawing a guidance letter that became a part of the case.
The letters are due today.
Lawyers for Gavin Grimm filed their response to the request. They urge the Court to keep the case on the docket and decide it on the merits:
Without the opinion letter referenced in the first question presented, and without any other specific guidance on 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 [the regulation that interprets Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972] left to defer to, the Court will inevitably have to settle the question by clarifying the proper interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33. Delaying resolution of that question will only lead to further harm, confusion, and protracted litigation for transgender students and school districts across the country. Another few years of needless litigation would not help clarify the legal question facing the Court, and it would impose enormous costs on individual students until the Court provides additional clarity.
We will post the school board’s letter as soon as we get it.
UPDATE: The school board’s letter is here. It also urges the Court to decide the merits:
In the School Board’s view, the withdrawal of those documents should not prevent the Court from hearing argument and resolving the questions presented. That is particularly evident as to the second question, which addresses whether, properly interpreted, Title IX and its regulations require access to sex-separated facilities based on gender identity.
The school board also asks the Court to ask the Solicitor General to file a brief stating the views of the United States first, after the SG is confirmed, and to postpone arguments until then.
The Court will decide what will happen in the case now.
This post has been edited to reflect the school Board’s request to postpone arguments if the Court asks the Solicitor General to file a brief