E. v. VIGO COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION, 608 F.Supp.3d 725

Plaintiffs B.E. and S.E. are 15-year-old transgender boys (designated female at birth) who legally changed their names and gender markers and have begun gender-affirming testosterone therapy; both are diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
At the start of the school year they used the boys’ restrooms without incident; school officials later barred them from boys’ restrooms and locker rooms absent "surgical or anatomical change," directing them to use the girls’ facilities or a single-user health-office bathroom.
Plaintiffs use the health-office restroom; it is distant from classes, they are effectively the only regular users, and this arrangement causes stigma, missed class time, and exacerbates medical and mental-health risks tied to gender dysphoria and chronic gastrointestinal conditions.
Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction alleging Title IX and Equal Protection violations; the court limited its analysis to Title IX and granted the motion.
The court relied on Bostock and Seventh Circuit precedent (Whitaker) to conclude discrimination against transgender students constitutes sex discrimination under Title IX and found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits.
The court found irreparable harm, lack of adequate legal remedies, that the balance of harms and public interest favor Plaintiffs, and waived the Rule 65(c) bond requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding transgender boys from male restrooms/locker rooms violates Title IX	Denial is sex discrimination because Title IX's prohibition on sex discrimination covers transgender status (relying on Bostock)	Title IX/regulation 34 C.F.R. §106.33 permits sex-separated facilities and schools may rely on anatomical differences	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed on Title IX claim; injunction granted to allow access to male facilities
Irreparable harm from denial of access	Denial exacerbates gender dysphoria, causes stigma, missed class, and long-term mental-health risks (including suicidality)	School says Plaintiffs have not shown self-harm contemplation or severe effects like in Whitaker	Court: Irreparable harm shown based on expert declarations and Plaintiffs’ testimony
Adequacy of legal remedies	Monetary damages cannot remedy preventable lifelong psychological harm or suicide risk	School did not meaningfully contest adequacy of remedies	Court: Legal remedies inadequate; equitable relief warranted
Balance of harms & public interest	Protecting civil rights and students’ health outweighs speculative privacy concerns; minimal disruption shown by prior use without incident	Injunction would invade classmates’ privacy and create policing burdens; policy decisions should be for legislature/agency	Court: Balance and public interest favor Plaintiffs; injunction appropriate

Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (Title VII holding that discrimination for being transgender or homosexual is discrimination "because of sex," relied on analogously for Title IX)
Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 858 F.3d 1034 (7th Cir. 2017) (Seventh Circuit enjoined a school from denying a transgender boy access to boys’ restrooms; treated such exclusion as sex discrimination under Title IX)
Grimm v. Gloucester County Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586 (4th Cir. 2020) (post-Bostock Fourth Circuit held a bathroom policy excluding a transgender boy from the boys’ restroom discriminated on the basis of sex)
Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2020) (explains preliminary-injunction standards and affected precedent analysis cited by the court)
J.A.W. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1030 (S.D. Ind. 2018) (district court precedent in the district granting similar preliminary relief to a transgender student)
Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John's Cnty., 968 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2020) (Eleventh Circuit panel opinion, after Bostock, concluding §106.33 did not insulate a school from a transgender discrimination claim)