8,900+ students, parents to Supreme Court: Uphold policy to protect privacy in restrooms

NFA joined an Amicus Brief along with 8,900+ students, parents and concerned citizens to support student privacy in locker rooms and restrooms.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed an amicus brief, or “friend of the court” brief on behalf of parents and students in all 50 states who have an interest in safeguarding the privacy and safety of students.

An amicus brief allows individuals or groups, who although not a party to the case, to assist the court by offering pertinent information that bears on the case.

As the family policy council for the state of Nebraska, NFA joined this brief to represent the interests of many concerned parents, students and educators who have legitimate concerns and feel they are unable to add their names themselves.

In the Gloucester decision, for the first time ever a court determined that in Title IX the term “sex” no longer refers to the biological differences between males and females. Rather, it refers to an individual’s subjective feelings of “gender identity.”

The case involves a student in Virginia demanding access to facilities reserved for members of the opposite sex. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling focused on whether Title IX also bans discrimination based on “gender identity.”

The court found that because Title IX is “silent as to which restroom transgender individuals are to use when a school elects to provide sex-segregated restrooms,” the Department of Education’s re-interpretation should be given controlling deference.

In other words, the Fourth Circuit Court discarded the traditional meaning of “sex” in Title IX and substituted “gender identity.” This ruling not only rewrites the plain language of Title IX and its regulations, but goes against every other court decision in the country.

ADF Legal Counsel Matt Sharp explained that in fact, “Title IX’s regulations specifically authorize schools to have separate restrooms and locker rooms for boys and girls. The policy accommodates students who aren’t comfortable using facilities designated for their biological sex without neglecting the established right of children to bodily privacy and safety.”

There have been at least 5 other federal and state court decisions, including two decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that have rejected the argument that Title IX requires a person to be allowed to use private facilities based on “gender identity” rather than biological sex.[1]

The Fourth Circuit’s decision is an outlier and the Supreme Court should overturn this wrongful interpretation of Title IX.

Schools can accommodate the unique needs of some without violating student’s basic right to privacy.

[1] Johnston v. Univ. of Pittsburgh of Com. Sys. of Higher Educ., 97 F. Supp. 3d 657 (W.D. Pa. 2015); Kastl v. Maricopa County Community College District, 325 F. App’x 492 (9th Cir. 2009); Jeldness v. Pearce, 30 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1994); Doe v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 4372872 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2008); R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., 477 S.W.3d 185 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).