A federal appeals court has declined to block an Idaho law requiring public school students to use only the restroom and changing facilities corresponding to their 鈥渂iological sex,鈥� ruling that it likely does not violate the 14th Amendment鈥檚 equal-protection clause or Title IX.
The decision is the latest development in a high-stakes national debate over the rights of transgender students and a reminder that the courts are weighing in even as the Trump administration has sought through executive orders and public statements to assert that there are and that students鈥� gender transitions.
At least 11 states have such restroom bans in place, according to the Associated Press.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in San Francisco, is notable because another panel of that court previously blocked a separate Idaho law that barred transgender athletes from women鈥檚 and girls鈥� sports.
The court in that earlier case, in an opinion initially filed in 2023 but , said discrimination based on transgender status was a form of sex discrimination and that the sports law was likely unconstitutional. Proponents of the sports law have .
The new decision involves the 2023 Idaho law on restrooms and facilities, which was challenged by a transgender student identified in court papers as Rebecca Roe and the Sexuality and Gender Alliance at Boise High School.
A federal district court declined to block the law, though the 9th Circuit temporarily issued an injunction that kept it from taking effect during the 2023-24 school year.
Court lends credence to Idaho鈥檚 student privacy and safety goals
Under its March 20 decision in , the 9th Circuit panel agreed that the Idaho restroom and facilities law discriminates based on sex and transgender status. Thus, the law must survive a heightened level of judicial scrutiny to pass muster under the equal-protection clause, the panel said.
But the court concluded that Idaho met that burden because the law cites the legislature鈥檚 objectives as 鈥減rotecting the privacy and safety of all students鈥� specifically 鈥渋n restrooms and changing facilities where such persons might be in a partial or full state of undress in the presence of others.鈥�
The state has a substantial interest in 鈥�(1) not exposing students to the unclothed bodies of students of the opposite sex; and (2) protecting students from having to expose their own unclothed bodies to students of the opposite sex,鈥� said the opinion by Judge Morgan Christen, an appointee of President Barack Obama. He was joined by Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, a President Bill Clinton appointee, and Mark J. Bennett, a first-term appointee of President Donald Trump.
This case was the 鈥渦nusual situation in which the state鈥檚 privacy justification is easily corroborated by common experience and circuit precedent,鈥� Christen said. 鈥淭hat some students in a state of partial undress may experience embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury in the presence of students of a different sex is neither novel nor implausible.鈥�
The court also declined to block the Idaho law as a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal law that bars sex discrimination in federally funded schools.
The court said it agreed that Idaho did not have adequate notice, when it accepted federal funds, 鈥渢hat Title IX prohibits the exclusion of transgender students from restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, and overnight lodging corresponding to their gender identity.鈥�
The panel gave a brief discussion in a footnote to the recent debate over conflicting interpretations of Title IX by the Biden administration鈥檚 2024 final regulation, which sought to protect transgender students but was struck down by a federal district judge in January, and President Trump鈥檚 executive orders and other public statements seeking to limit transgender rights at school.
鈥淲e express no opinion鈥� on whether the Biden or Trump administration鈥檚 actions give notice to the states that a law such as Idaho鈥檚 excluding transgender students from facilities that 鈥渁lign with their gender identity鈥� would violate Title IX, the court said.
