Doe v. South Carolina, State of
2:24-cv-06420
| D.S.C. | Jul 8, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs challenge a South Carolina budget proviso prohibiting school districts from allowing transgender students to use restrooms aligned with their gender identity.
- Plaintiffs claim the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX.
- Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and actions have unsettled the applicable legal standards, particularly around what level of scrutiny applies to transgender-related classifications.
- The Fourth Circuit precedent heavily relied upon by plaintiffs has been vacated or is under review by the Supreme Court.
- The parties have pending motions, including a defense summary judgment motion and a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The District Court stayed the case until the Supreme Court decides B.P.J. or the 2025-2026 term ends, citing judicial economy and avoidance of inconsistent or quickly obsolete rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restroom access for transgender students | The Proviso violates Equal Protection and Title IX by discriminating on gender identity/sex | The Proviso is valid; recent precedent applies rational basis review, not heightened scrutiny | Stay granted pending Supreme Court rulings |
| Proper level of scrutiny for transgender status | Intermediate scrutiny applies per prior 4th Circuit cases | Only rational basis should apply, per recent Supreme Court direction | Stay granted to await clarity |
| Title IX protections | Denying access is sex discrimination under Title IX | No Title IX violation; statute interpreted otherwise | Stay granted |
| Judicial economy and potential hardships | Immediate injunction needed to prevent harm to plaintiff and class | A stay is preferable to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings | Stay granted; motions denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Skrmetti, 145 S.Ct. 1816 (2025) (Supreme Court applied only rational basis review to a ban on certain medical procedures for transgender minors)
- Kadel v. Folwell, 100 F.4th 122 (4th Cir. 2024) (Fourth Circuit previously held heightened scrutiny applied to transgender discrimination claims; subsequently vacated by Supreme Court)
- Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2020) (Established heightened scrutiny for transgender discrimination under Equal Protection and Title IX)
- Landis v. North America Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (Articulated district courts’ authority to stay proceedings pending higher court guidance)