Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionTitle IXTransgender rightsSex discriminationEqual Protection ClauseTitle IXintermediate scrutiny

Facts

Gavin Grimm is a transgender male who, after transitioning socially in high school, was initially allowed to use the boys restrooms. After community backlash, the School Board adopted a policy limiting restroom use to the student's "biological gender" and provided single-stall restrooms for students with "gender identity issues," which excluded Grimm from the boys restrooms. Grimm suffered stigma, avoided bathrooms, developed urinary tract infections, and experienced severe emotional distress. He later obtained a state-court order recognizing him as male and an amended birth certificate, but the Board still refused to amend his school records.

Issue

Whether the School Board's restroom policy, as applied to exclude Grimm from the boys restrooms, and its refusal to amend his school records violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Also, whether Grimm's claims were moot and whether he was required to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the school-records decision.

Rule

A school policy that determines restroom access by a student's birth-certificate sex is a sex-based classification subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and transgender persons are at least a quasi-suspect class. Such a policy is unconstitutional unless it is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Under Title IX, excluding a transgender student from the restroom matching the student's gender identity is discrimination "on the basis of sex," and a regulation allowing separate toilet facilities by sex does not permit discriminatory exclusion of transgender students from those facilities.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A public high school in Columbus, Ohio adopts a rule that students may use only the restroom matching the sex listed on their birth certificate. Jordan Lee, a transgender girl, is excluded from the girls' restroom and directed to a single-user restroom instead.

If Jordan brings an Equal Protection challenge, which standard of review should a court apply under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that a restroom policy keyed to the sex marker on a student's birth certificate is necessarily a sex-based classification. Sex-based classifications receive intermediate scrutiny and must be substantially related to an important governmental interest, supported by an exceedingly persuasive justification. The availability of a separate restroom does not change the classification.