761 F.Supp.3d 1159
S.D. Ind.2025Background
- A.C., a transgender boy and student in the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, was denied access to male restrooms at both his middle and high schools, despite his legal male status and gender-affirming medical care.
- The School District’s policy required students to use the restroom that matches their biological sex assigned at birth, relegating A.C. to either female restrooms or single-occupancy/faculty restrooms.
- A preliminary injunction in 2022 allowed A.C. to use boys’ restrooms; this order was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- A.C. moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a permanent injunction and a declaration that the School District’s policy violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The court evaluated the admissibility of expert testimony but ultimately did not consider it material to the liability stage, focusing instead on the key legal issues under Title IX and Equal Protection.
- The action was at the summary judgment stage, addressing liability only, with damages to be determined at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title IX – Restroom Access | School’s policy denies equal access and discriminates based on sex, violating Title IX as interpreted by Seventh Circuit precedent | Policy is consistent with law; accommodations are adequate; contest authority of precedent after Bostock | For A.C.; Policy is sex discrimination under Title IX per 7th Cir. |
| Equal Protection Clause | Denial of access is based on sex and targeted at transgender students without adequate justification | Policy serves important governmental interest in privacy; no nefarious intent | For A.C.; Policy lacks exceedingly persuasive justification; intentional discrimination found |
| Permanent Injunction | A.C. faces irreparable harm without an injunction; no adequate remedy at law; no harm to School if injunction granted | School claimed potential for harm and privacy loss, but provided no evidence | Injunction granted; all factors met for permanent relief |
| Admissibility of Expert Testimony | Dr. Kaliebe’s report is not relevant to liability and should be excluded | Testimony addresses harms and policy impacts, should be considered | Not material at summary judgment as to liability; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker by Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding that restroom policies requiring use in accordance with birth-assigned sex violate Title IX and Equal Protection)
- Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Georgia, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) (holding discrimination because of transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (describing Equal Protection analysis and rational basis review)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (articulating the heightened scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications)