869 F.3d 286
4th Cir.2017Background
- Gavin Grimm, a transgender male student, sued the Gloucester County School Board in July 2015, alleging the Board’s policy requiring restroom use based on biological sex violated Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
- The district court dismissed Grimm’s Title IX claim and denied a preliminary injunction in a September 17, 2015 opinion.
- This Court reversed the Title IX dismissal and remanded the injunction issue in April 2016, relying on prior federal guidance; the district court then granted a preliminary injunction in June 2016 permitting Grimm to use male restrooms.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, then the Trump Administration rescinded the prior federal guidance; the Supreme Court vacated this Court’s April 2016 decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the new guidance, and this Court vacated the district court’s June 2016 injunction.
- Because of those vacaturs, the September 17, 2015 district-court opinion is now the operative order on appeal; the School Board contends the case is moot because Grimm subsequently graduated, while Grimm argues he maintains a concrete interest (e.g., alumni events) and the Board’s position on alumni is noncommittal.
- The Fourth Circuit determined the record lacks factual development to resolve mootness and remanded to the district court for factfinding on whether Grimm’s graduation renders the case moot (including possible jurisdictional discovery).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after graduation | Grimm: graduation does not moot claim because he may attend alumni/school events and Board hasn’t promised to stop enforcement | School Bd: Grimm graduated so he lacks a continuing interest; policy may not apply to alumni | Remanded to district court to develop facts and decide mootness; jurisdiction must be resolved first |
| Whether appellate court can proceed despite jurisdictional doubts | Grimm: court has jurisdiction; factual record unnecessary | School Bd: absence of live controversy deprives court of jurisdiction | Court: jurisdictional questions must be decided first; cannot proceed without resolving mootness |
| Need for additional factual development on jurisdiction | Grimm: existing record and arguments suffice | School Bd: factual record must show continuing interest | Held: record is insufficient; remand required for factual development and possible jurisdictional discovery |
| Effect of intervening federal guidance and Supreme Court action on prior rulings | Grimm: prior reversal and injunction supported by earlier guidance | School Bd: later guidance and Supreme Court vacatur undermine prior rulings | Court acknowledged intervening events caused vacatur and necessitated returning to the district court’s original September 2015 order; remand limited to mootness issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (federal courts require a live controversy at all stages of review)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (federal courts cannot decide moot cases)
- Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U.S. 301 (1964) (Art. III requires a continuing controversy)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional questions must be decided before merits)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (party must maintain a continuing interest to avoid mootness)
- Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Tech., Inc., 758 F.3d 516 (4th Cir. 2014) (remand for factfinding where jurisdictional facts are undeveloped)