Trump-Appointed Judge Denies A "Right To Trans-Free Bathrooms"

A Trump-appointed judge in Ohio has denied that Ohio Muslim and Christian students have a right to "trans free bathrooms and curriculums." This is the latest in a string of trans legal victories.

A federal judge appointed by former President Trump, Judge Michael J. Newman, dismissed a lawsuit by Muslim and Christian groups in Ohio seeking to prevent transgender teachers and students from using restrooms corresponding with their gender identity. Newman's ruling also denied the plaintiff's request to remove instructional materials promoting LGBTQ+ inclusivity. This decision is another in a series of legal victories for transgender individuals after a year in which more than 500 laws targeting this group were proposed.

The lawsuit was filed by Muslim and Christian plaintiffs against Bethel Local School District near Dayton, Ohio. The suit claimed the district consulted with attorneys who advised that, under state and federal civil rights laws, a transgender student that attends a school in the district must be permitted to use the restroom of her gender identity. The school acted based on this interpretation, and indeed, Title IX and the 14th Amendment have been interpreted by various courts to apply to transgender individuals. This includes a recent decision in neighboring Indiana.

Despite the school's adherence to this interpretation, the plaintiffs falsely argued that Title IX actually prohibits transgender students from using these restrooms. They also contended that permitting transgender students in restrooms of their gender identity and including LGBTQ+ educational materials infringes on their religious liberty to have "transgender free bathrooms," a phrase taken directly from the ruling. The judge disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit on both merits and standing.

See this statement from the Judge’s analysis of the plaintiff’s claims (emphasis added):

Plaintiffs characterize the School District’s actions as a preference favoring transgender students by permitting them to use the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, while harming Plaintiffs by rejecting their attempt to prevent Anne from using the girls’ bathroom—causing them anxiety and distress because the School District is not honoring their “self-declared core identity.” Doc. No. 1 at PageID 21. The Parent Plaintiffs make the same allegations, contending that parents of transgender students receive disproportionate favoritism because their children’s wishes are respected, while the Parent Plaintiffs children’s religious beliefs requiring transgender-free bathrooms are not honored. Id 

The judge responded, noting that no such right exists in federal law or in the constitution:

Ohio Transgender Bathroom Case,

The lawsuit went further, however. Plaintiffs also sought a judgment to remove all LGBTQ+ materials from schools, arguing that an LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum violated their religious liberties and rights. Such legal challenges have become increasingly common but are rarely successful—a similar such lawsuit is underway in Montgomery County, Maryland, regarding LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum standards. In this case in Ohio, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, citing a Ninth Circuit opinion that stated accommodating the varying "personal, moral, or religious concerns of every parent" would be "impossible" for public schools. The opinion noted that different parents might often, as in this case, desire conflicting outcomes.

Transgender bathroom access has grown increasingly targeted by right-wing groups. Eleven states currently have laws on the books that could limit transgender bathroom access, with the vast majority of those laws limited to public schools. In Kansas, though, a new law states that cisgender people have a right to “single-sex bathrooms,” with a definition of sex that excludes transgender people. Florida went even further, passing a law that explicitly criminalizes transgender bathroom access that could result in 1-year jail sentences for those who do not comply.

In Ohio, no such anti-trans bathroom law is in place. This case was especially alarming for transgender individuals because it was a clear attempt by anti-trans groups to force bathroom restrictions in the absence of any legislative ban, all under the guise of "religious freedom." Disturbingly, these "religious freedom" arguments have been manipulated to justify wide-ranging discriminatory practices, from religious hospitals outright refusing necessary medical treatments to the erosion of vital civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ individuals seeking goods and services from private businesses.

Across the United States, a multitude of similar lawsuits are progressing through the courts. Even though the vast majority are consistently rejected, it only requires one judge in an unfavorable circuit to drastically alter the landscape of transgender rights. Anti-trans plaintiffs remain determined to find that judge. For now, however, the transgender community can celebrate another courtroom victory in a year marked by several such triumphs. This provides a glimmer of hope for the future among a year filled with harsh anti-trans legislation.