In a deeply disappointing turn of events for conservative principles and the cherished notion of local autonomy, the U.S. Supreme Court regrettably rejected an appeal from the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, Indiana. This legal clash centered on the school district’s sensible policy regulating bathroom access based on biological sex—a policy that, rather perplexingly, the lower court deemed to infringe on transgender students’ constitutional rights and federal anti-discrimination law.
The Supreme Court declined to hear a school district’s appeal of a ruling blocking the district from requiring students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their sex. | @CarolineDowney_ https://t.co/DHIoD7YbBf
— National Review (@NRO) January 16, 2024
The conservative standpoint, championing the authority of local entities such as school boards in decision-making, faced a disheartening setback as the Supreme Court inexplicably chose to forgo considering the appeal. At the crux of the matter lies a 2023 ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which extended protection to a student identified as “A.C.” under Title IX and the 14th Amendment. The court, in what conservatives perceive as judicial activism, insisted that the school’s policy ran counter to these legal provisions. Despite the court’s usual aversion to engaging in contentious cases related to transgender rights, this decision was viewed by conservatives as a profound blow to their values.
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to take up appeal from order requiring schools to allow trans students to use bathroom and locker room of their gender choice, not their biological sex. As a result, a little girl must go to bathroom in the presence of a man with a beard, and high… pic.twitter.com/fdaTsiRkgZ
— David C. Stolinsky (@DCStolinsky) January 16, 2024
A spokesperson for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita expressed profound disappointment with the Supreme Court’s inexplicable decision, emphasizing the potential detrimental impact on local decision-making and the autonomy of school boards. The spokesperson strongly argued that the court squandered a pivotal opportunity to address the alarming divergence among appellate courts on this matter, marking an unequivocal defeat for the cherished principle of decentralization championed by conservatives.
The legal dispute in Indiana, featuring a 13-year-old gender dysphoric student, has become a rallying point for conservatives, igniting concerns about unwarranted federal intervention into local school policies. In 2022, U.S. District Judge Tanya Pratt delivered a ruling in favor of the student, mandating the school to acquiesce to bathroom access aligned with the student’s gender identity. The 7th Circuit subsequently upheld this decision, compelling the school district to seek redress through an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court refuses to hear Indiana school appealing allowing trans in girls bathrooms.
At least one SCOTUS Jurist couldn’t describe what a woman is to the US Senate anyways.https://t.co/QM4D1xWmE3
— David L Wagner (@DavidLWagner4) January 16, 2024
This case amplifies conservative anxieties about the expanding reach of federal authority and the encroachment into local decision-making, particularly regarding deeply ingrained social and cultural values. The broader conservative narrative underscores the imperative to staunchly defend traditional values and entrust communities with the autonomy to shape their policies, particularly on contentious issues like transgender rights.
Despite the mixed rulings in lower courts, the Supreme Court’s baffling reluctance to intervene in this case underscores the uphill battle conservatives face in upholding their values and resisting what they perceive as unwarranted encroachments on decentralization and local autonomy. This decision aligns with an alarming pattern where the court refrains from engaging with cases that conservatives deem critical in safeguarding their values and preserving the ability of local communities to govern themselves.