No. 20- _______ In the Supreme Court of the United States __________ GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, PETITIONER, v. GAVIN GRIMM __________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit __________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI __________ DAVID P. CORRIGAN GENE C. SCHAERR JEREMY D. CAPPS Counsel of Record M. SCOTT FISHER JR. ERIK S. JAFFE HARMAN, CLAYTOR, HANNAH SMITH CORRIGAN & WELLMAN JOSHUA J. PRINCE Post Office Box 70280 SCHAERR | JAFFE LLP Richmond, VA 23225 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 (804) 747-5200 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 787-1060 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Although Title IX prohibits schools from discriminating “on the basis of sex,” 20 U.S.C. §1681(a), it expressly permits them to provide separate living facilities, including restrooms, for the different sexes. 20 U.S.C. §1686; 34 C.F.R. §106.33. This protracted case began when Gavin Grimm, a biological female who self-identifies as male, challenged the local school board’s decision to require him to use either a unisex restroom or a restroom assigned to members of his biological sex, i.e., girls. Four years ago, this Court granted certiorari in this case after the Fourth Circuit deferred to an unpublished letter from the Department of Education, asserting that Title IX requires schools to treat students consistent with their gender identities rather than their biological sex. After a new Administration withdrew that letter, the Court vacated and remanded. The district court and the Fourth Circuit then held that both Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause forbid schools from denying transgender students access to the restrooms assigned to the opposite biological sex. Following yet another election, the current Administration has announced it intends to enforce that position nationwide. The question presented is: Does Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause require schools to let transgender students use multi- user restrooms designated for the opposite biological sex, even when single-user restrooms are available for all students regardless of gender identity? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner Gloucester County School Board was Defendant-Appellant in the court of appeals in No. 19- 1952. Respondent Gavin Grimm was Plaintiff-Appellee in the court of appeals in No. 19-1952. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ v INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 2 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 2 STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS .............................................................. 3 STATEMENT .............................................................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ........ 14 I. The Title IX Issue Warrants Review. .................. 15 A. This Court has already recognized that the Title IX issue warrants review. ...................... 15 B. The Fourth Circuit failed to properly apply the plain meaning and history of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. §106.33. ................................................ 17 C. The rule adopted below affects millions of students and thousands of schools throughout the Nation. ...................................................... 23 II. The Equal-Protection Issue Warrants Review. .. 28 A. The Fourth Circuit’s analysis flouts this Court’s precedents. ......................................... 28 B. The Fourth Circuit’s equal-protection ruling has even more far-reaching consequences than its Title IX ruling. ........................................... 34 III.This Case Remains An Excellent Vehicle. .......... 35 iv CONCLUSION .......................................................... 37 APPENDICES Fourth Circuit, No. 19-1952 Rehearing Denial (Sept. 22, 2020) ...................... 1a Fourth Circuit, No. 19-1952 Opinion (Aug. 26, 2020) .................................... 12a Eastern District of Virginia, No. 4:15-cv-54 Order (Aug. 9, 2019) ........................................ 119a Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-273 Order (Mar. 6, 2017) ....................................... 156a Fourth Circuit, No. 15-2056 Rehearing Denial (May 31, 2016) ................... 157a Fourth Circuit, No. 15-2056 Opinion (April 19, 2016) .................................. 163a Eastern District of Virginia, No. 4:15-cv-54 Memo. Opinion (Sept. 17, 2015) ...................... 227a Table 1 Public-School Data ........................................... 262a v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns County, 968 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2020) ...................... passim Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist., 402 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2005) .................................. 26 Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S.Ct. 1731 (2020) ..................................... passim Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587 (1987). ............................................... 31 Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) ................................................ 35 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .................................... 28, 30, 33 Cornfield by Lewis v. Consol. High Sch. Dist. No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) ................................ 26 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) ................................................ 29 Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167 (2005) ................................................ 21 Michael M. v. Superior Ct. of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464(1981) ................................................. 29 Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) .................................................... 28 Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347 (1979). ............................................... 29 vi Thomas ex rel. Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2001) .............................. 26 Thomas v. Roberts, 536 U.S. 953 (2002) ................................................ 26 Tuan Anh Nguyen v. I.N.S., 533 U.S. 53 (2001) .................................................. 33 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ........................................ passim Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. Of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) ................................ 23 Statutes 20 U.S.C. §1681(a) ................................................... 3, 4 20 U.S.C. §1686 ................................................. passim 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) ................................................. 9, 36 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) ................................................ 20 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e) ................................................ 21 Other Authorities 118 Cong. Rec. 5807 (1972) ......................................... 4 Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) ......................................... 18 Lila N. Carol et al., School Boards: Strengthening Grass Roots Leadership (1986), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED280182.pdf ...... 24 Jacqueline P. Danzberger et al., School Boards: The Forgotten Players on the Education Team, 69 Phi Delta Kappan 53 (1987).24 vii Sabra L. Katz-Wise, Gender fluidity: What it means and why support matters, Harvard Health Blog (Dec. 3, 2020), https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/gender- fluidity-what-it-means-and-why-support-matters- 2020120321544. ..................................................... 31 Deborah Land, Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role and Effectiveness in Relation to Students’ Academic Achievement (2002), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED462512.pdf ...... 24 National Center for Transgender Equality, Understanding Non-Binary People: How to Be Respectful and Supportive (Oct. 5, 2018), https://transequality.org/issues/resources/underst anding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful- and-supportive...................................................... 20 Supreme Court Rule 10(c) ......................................... 16 The White House, Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation (Jan 20, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing- room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive- order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination- on-basis-of-gender-identity-or- sexual-orientation/ ................................................. 13 Regulations 34 C.F.R. §106.33 ............................................... passim viii Constitutional Provisions U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1 ............................... passim INTRODUCTION For school officials, as for parents, the question of how best to respond to a teenager who identifies with the opposite biological sex is often excruciatingly difficult. On the one hand, the teenager deserves and needs everyone’s compassion. On the other hand, allowing the teenager to use multi-user restrooms, locker rooms and shower facilities reserved for the opposite sex raises what this Court has acknowledged to be serious concerns about bodily privacy—for the teenager and others. Depending on their facilities and resources, some school officials reasonably find ways to accommodate the teenager’s desire to use facilities based on gender identity rather than sex. Others,