2018 IL App (1st) 180294
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Nova Maday, a transgender student, sought a preliminary injunction to require Township High School District 211 to allow her unrestricted use of the girls’ locker room during her final semester of high school (starting January 2018).
- The district had offered conditional access: use of the girls’ locker room provided she changed in a private changing stall (an arrangement used for other transgender students and reflected in a prior Resolution Agreement with the Office for Civil Rights).
- Maday filed an Illinois Human Rights charge (dismissed for lack of substantial evidence) and then sued in Cook County, seeking injunctive relief under the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/5-102). She later filed a motion for a preliminary injunction limited to personal relief for her last semester.
- Students and Parents for Privacy (SPP) was allowed to intervene for the purpose of defending other students’ privacy interests; SPP argued the Act exempts single-sex privacy facilities and opposed unrestricted access.
- The circuit court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the school-specific amendment to the Act (section 5-102.2) addresses denial of access (not "full and equal enjoyment") and that Maday had not shown a likelihood of success. Maday appealed under Supreme Court Rule 307.
- While the interlocutory appeal was pending, Maday graduated (May 20, 2018). The appellate court held the appeal moot and dismissed it, declining to reach the merits or invoke the public‑interest exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a preliminary injunction ordering unrestricted locker‑room access for Maday’s final semester was improper | Maday: the Act forbids denying transgender students full and equal enjoyment of public‑accommodation facilities; she sought personal, immediate relief for her last semester | District/SPP: schools are governed by §5‑102.2, which limits relief to access (not “full and equal enjoyment”); district offered access conditioned on private changing stalls; injunction would upend carefully balanced policies and privacy protections | Appeal dismissed as moot because Maday graduated; court did not decide merits and found public‑interest exception inapplicable |
| Whether the interlocutory appeal should proceed despite mootness because of potential impact on damages | Maday: appellate ruling could affect damages in the underlying case | District/SPP: no live controversy for preliminary injunctive relief; damages argument inadequately briefed | Argument forfeited for inadequate briefing; mootness dismissal stands |
| Whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applies | Maday: issue implicates public interest and guidance is needed for schools and agencies | District/SPP: the requested relief was personal and temporary; no demonstrated conflict in law or likelihood of recurrence | Exception not met: issue was personal/temporary, no law in disarray, and recurrence speculative |
| Standard and scope of interlocutory review for preliminary injunction denial | Maday: sought appellate review of injunction denial under Rule 307 | District/SPP: appellate review is limited to the propriety of the denial and should not decide merits | Court noted scope is limited and that parties argued merits; nevertheless dismissed appeal as moot without addressing merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345 (Ill. 2009) (mootness requires live controversy through disposition; public‑interest exception narrowly construed)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2016 IL 118129 (Ill. 2016) (public‑interest exception criteria and analysis whether authoritative determination is needed)
- Mount Carmel High School v. Illinois High School Ass’n, 279 Ill. App. 3d 122 (Ill. App. Ct.) (mootness where subsequent events render relief impossible)
- Hamer v. Board of Education of Township High School District No. 113, 140 Ill. App. 3d 308 (Ill. App. Ct.) (student challenges moot after graduation)
- Kurle v. Evangelical Hospital Ass’n, 89 Ill. App. 3d 45 (Ill. App. Ct.) (limits on use of extrinsic evidence for preliminary injunction before answer)