Gavin Grimm Case Summary

One current court case is dealing with a federal judge releasing an injunction to momentarily restrict transgender students from using school bathrooms as well as locker rooms of their choice (Eldeib). In blocking students from using something as simple as a restroom or locker room, a student’s identity can be misconstrued. Especially with a student who may already feel differently about their identity. A mother in Denton, Texas, hopes to change the legal problems revolving around the controversy of bathroom laws in Texas schools. Amber Briggle states her 8-year-old transgender son has felt he needs to wait to use the restroom until he would arrive home. As well as this, Briggle confirms her son, MG’s grades dropped drastically. His grades continued to worsen until he was given a restroom alteration, allowing him to feel comfortable. (Wright). Along with MG, many students do not feel safe in their schools because of having to hide their transgender identity. Students may not feel safe just because Texas is such a conservative state. Ken Paxton and other state leaders even exchanged in transphobic rhetoric at the 2016 Texas GOP convention. Because of the strong conservative viewpoints in Texas, young people as well as students in the area may not feel accepted as who they are, leading them to disguise their true self. School is already a tough time in a child or teens life, and being discriminated against because of how one identifies does not make a student’s lifestyle any easier. Because transgender students in Texas schools are entitled to free expression of gender identity, they are also permitted to dress how they please. As well as wearing the clothes a transgender students feels most comfortable with, it is permissible to address these students by their preferred name. Because transgender

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Gobitis and Barnette are two very important cases whose rulings had a big significance on a specific minority and the State. In the Gobitis case the Gobitis kids were expelled from public schools in Minersville School district for refusing to salute the flag. Saluting the flag involved standing and placing your right hand over your heart as you say the pledge of allegiance. It was not done in disrespect but due to their religious belief. The Gobitis’ religion looks down upon saluting the flag or symbols like that. Saluting the flag is a daily exercise that is done by students and teachers. Whoever refuses is expelled and the parents are prosecuted also. When the kids were kicked out of all public schools they had to go to private school where their dad could barely afford it but had no choice. Later on the Barnette case reversed the ruling of the court. It focused more on the constitution and what was legal. It was unconstitutional to punish a student for exercising their freedom of religion and speech. Citizens have rights and it had to be acknowledged, not just kick students out of school for their belief. As stated in the Bill of Rights in the first amendment people have freedom to religion and speech and can freely exercise that. The Barnette case made that obvious and gave the people back their rights. The justices from each case had their own opinion on what they thought was best and what wasn’t. Some were all for giving citizens their freedom of speech

Every person in the United states is entitle to their rights based on the amendments. Transgender students are protected by Title IX and cannot be neglected in schools by anyone or they will stop receiving federal money. “The Justice and Education Departments issued guidance that, under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, schools receiving federal money may not discriminate based on a student’s transgender status and that the departments would treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX.” (According to New York Times). This should be applied to every single school not only schools that get federal money because every transgender student should be protected by a law just as every other cisgender student. Every single citizen in the United states is protected by their civil rights which is “the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Kansas passed a bill on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 that denies transgender students from using the restroom, as well as other facilities retaining to gender “when they are in various states of undress” (Committee on Federal and State Affairs, page 1; sec. 2; subparagraph b; lines 8-12), based on their preferred gender and forces them to use the restroom based on their birth sex. This bill was passed by the Committee on Federal and State Affairs in order to protect the privacy of students and to prevent “potential embarrassment, shame and psychological injury to students” (Committee on Federal and State Affairs, page 1; sec. 2; subparagraph f; lines 27-29). This bill also allows for students to sue a transgender student for two-thousand five hundred dollars if they are found in the “wrong” restroom. Forcing the transgender students in Kansas to use the restroom based on biology is wrong because forcing someone to disregard a personal preference to accommodate another is inhumane and has potentially deadly effects.

The School Board will be in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., if they do not allow a male that is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and identifies as a female, access to the female restroom. Though the Supreme Court has not ruled on this topic, a Fourth Circuit ruling, the Department of Education and Department of Justice Dear Colleague Letter, and case law regarding transgender students can help enlighten the school board on this topic. An introductory understanding of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 will assist in this matter. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 and its regulations prohibit sex discrimination in schools, educational programs and activities that are recipients of Federal funds. Within Title IX it specifically prohibits the discrimination of student’s based on gender identity, including the discrimination of transgender students. Title IX provides: “[n]o person… shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

The school then appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the state may consider race as a factor for admittance for diversity, but only if other circumstances are

Millions of people go to court to fight for something they believe in or disagree with, but don't get their voices heard. The constitution made amendments to ensure fairness and it's not right if we don't have those fairnesses. In Brown v board of education and Plessy v Ferguson they were fighting to have rights and fairness, but Plessy v Ferguson got their rights heard right away and the Brown v board of Education didn't get there voices heard in till many years after they went to court. In the 1890's Plessy got on the wrong train car and decided he didn't want to move. The authorities said that Plessy would have to pay $25 or go to jail for 20 days, so when he refused they put him in jail. This violated the 14th amendment because, its unequal that white children had better things. In 1950-1951 segregation was a big problem even with little kids going to different schools just because of the

The two major Supreme Court decisions need to be identified, which are related to student to student sexual harassment. Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District sets the standard under Title IX in which an institution could be held liable for sexual harassment. However, this particular case only addressed faculty to student sexual harassment. The Supreme Court did use Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education to clarify whether the standards set in Gebser apply to harassment cases regarding student to student harassment. The court ruled that the standards which Gebser set do apply to student harassment by another student. Davis does expand the criteria necessary to hold an institution liable for harassment.

In this case an African American father wanted to send his daughter to a close school but the school was not a black friendly school do to segregation she was not allowed to attend. The court decided that it was not constitutional and that it went against our equal rights.

Constitutional issues: The question addressed to the Court involved the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other 'tangible' factors may be equal, deprive the children of educational opportunities?” the Court was asked to determine whether the segregation of schools was constitutional.

However, President Donald Trump is moving to reverse Obama-era guidelines on transgender students' right to use the bathroom of their choice in public schools to no rights at all (Kennedy). Certain schools give transgenders the right to choose the bathroom that they're comfortable in, while in other schools, it is necessary to be on a sex-reassignment plan and to have your sex legally renamed in order to use the bathroom you wish. Yet, there are problems which occur in this, “Schools can only require an assertion of gender transition. Requiring a diagnosis or treatment before a student is considered transgender may be unfair to lower-income students without access to such options, advocacy groups say” (Blad). One thing that many don't consider is the setting of income in which these students have. Another issue is that President Trump’s opinions on transgender students has lost federal protections that allowed them to use school bathrooms which match their gender. “In several cases, schools have opted to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity, but complaints from parents or others in the community have prompted schools to reverse their policies” (Kennedy). Even though some parents may be worried of danger involving creeps and predators, it is important to take into consideration the safety