Dodds v. United States Department of Education
845 F.3d 217
6th Cir.2016Background
- Jane Doe, an 11-year-old transgender girl with special needs, sued Highland Local School District; the district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the school to treat her as female and allow use of the girls’ restroom.
- Highland sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal and sought to file portions of its filings under seal; Doe opposed the stay and sought leave to file a sur-reply responding to a new argument in Highland’s reply.
- The Sixth Circuit granted Doe leave to file a sur-reply, and limited Highland’s sealing request to only those exhibits that had been filed under seal and are electronically inaccessible.
- The panel evaluated the stay request under the four-factor test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm to movant, harm to others, public interest), emphasizing that likelihood of success and irreparable injury are most critical.
- The majority denied Highland’s stay: it found Highland failed to show likely success on appeal or irreparable harm, while Doe would suffer irreparable harm if excluded from girls’ restrooms given her age, mental-health history, and significant improvement while using the girls’ restroom; the public interest favored protecting constitutional and civil rights.
- Judge Sutton dissented, arguing the Supreme Court’s stay and grant of certiorari in the Gloucester County Title IX case made a stay appropriate here and urging deference to the Supreme Court’s action to avoid inconsistent interim rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Doe) | Defendant's Argument (Highland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay of a preliminary injunction should issue pending appeal | A stay would harm Doe irreparably by reversing improvements in mental health and disrupting status quo; public interest favors protecting rights | Highland argued a stay is appropriate because the injunction should be reversed on appeal and lower-court factual findings get less deference without an evidentiary hearing | Denied — Highland failed to show likelihood of success or irreparable harm; Doe would suffer irreparable harm and public interest weighs against a stay |
| Whether gender nonconformity/transgender status is covered by federal civil-rights protections | Doe: discrimination based on transgender status or gender nonconformity is actionable sex stereotyping/sex discrimination | Highland: contests applicability and challenges district-court findings; seeks deference because of procedural issues | Majority treated existing precedent as supportive of Doe (citing Smith, Glenn, Grimm) and found Highland unlikely to succeed on appeal |
| Whether the status quo favors maintaining the injunction | Doe: status quo is the period since injunction was entered, during which her condition improved; maintaining it prevents further harm | Highland: compliance with the injunction should not foreclose a stay—argues Supreme Court stay in Gloucester supports pause | Court: status quo here is best preserved by denying stay to avoid disrupting Doe’s improvements |
| Sealing of appellate filings | Highland: seeks to file O’Ban declaration under seal because exhibits were sealed below | Doe: opposes broad sealing; requests leave to sur-reply on new points | Court: granted sealing in part (only electronically inaccessible sealed exhibits); granted Doe leave to file sur-reply |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standards for issuing a stay pending appeal)
- Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir.) (gender nonconformity and sex-stereotyping framework)
- Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.) (transgender status and sex-stereotyping)
- G.G. ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd., 822 F.3d 709 (4th Cir.) (Title IX dispute over transgender students’ restroom access)
- Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir.) (preliminary-injunction standard requiring serious questions on the merits)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (irreparable harm requirement for stays)
- G&V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir.) (public interest in protecting constitutional rights)