Gender Equity

The intersection of federal privacy law, parental rights, and student gender identity has become one of the most actively litigated areas of education law. For example, on January 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) found that the California Department of Education (CDE) violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—a federal statute granting parents the right to access their children’s education records—by maintaining policies that pressure school officials to conceal students’ gender transitions from their parents.

Red treadmill at the stadium with the numbering

On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases West Virginia v. B.P.J. (No. 24-43) and Little v. Hecox (No. 24-38), upholding state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit transgender female athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports. In so doing, the High Court reversed decisions from both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (West Virginia) and the Ninth Circuit (Idaho). The ruling addressed two distinct legal questions—one under Title IX and the other under the Equal Protection Clause—with different vote counts on each.

Judge gavel on a wooden desk, law books background

Understanding how courts interpret school policies is essential for today’s educational leaders, especially as issues involving gender identity continue to evolve.

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Polk v. Montgomery County Public Schools, offers important guidance for school districts navigating the balance between protecting students and respecting the personal beliefs of staff. This blog post breaks down what the Polk decision means for your district and offers practical steps to help ensure your policies remain both legally sound and supportive of all students.

Columns_000017257808

The legal landscape for transgender rights in the United States continues to evolve rapidly, with the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) and federal courts issuing pivotal decisions. The past year has seen high-profile cases on access to gender-affirming care, participation in school sports, restroom policies, and the intersection of First Amendment rights with issues of gender identity. These cases have resulted in a patchwork of rulings and left many legal questions unresolved, with significant implications for students, educators, and families nationwide.

School districts often have gender-based dress codes, outlining specific requirements for students such as mandating a particular skirt length for female students or prohibiting muscle shirts for male students. In late 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on school dress codes that made multiple findings regarding the disproportionate impact of dress codes on girls and minorities.

Within the last couple of weeks, two decisions were issued that relate to transgender students’ use of facilities in public schools.  In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a federal district court judge denied the Gloucester County school board’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff, a transgender student named Gavin Grimm, alleges the school board’s policy prohibiting his use of the bathroom that corresponds to his gender identity, rather than his biological sex, is unconstitutional. Likewise, in Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously rejected an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to block the school district’s policy allowing students to use sex-segregated facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

The Supreme Court recently lost an opportunity to address important issues affecting transgender students.  On August 25, 2017, the Kenosha Unified School District filed a petition for certiorari after the Seventh Circuit affirmed a Wisconsin District Court’s decision granting a transgender student a preliminary injunction to use the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity, rather than his biological sex.

On June 6, 2017, Candice Jackson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Education, sent the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Regional Directors a memorandum outlining how to evaluate and investigate complaints involving students who identify as transgender. Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Education and Department of Justice issued a joint Dear Colleague Letter which provided specific information regarding Title IX recipients’ obligations and examples of how transgender students’ complaints of sex discrimination should be evaluated. On February 22, 2017, the Department of Education withdrew  the 2016 Dear Colleague Letter, and now Jackson’s memorandum serves as guidance.

The extension of civil rights protections to transgender and gender non-conforming individuals is rapidly evolving.  These issues are playing out in schools across the country, and a recent Seventh Circuit decision seems to suggest that transgender students will be afforded Title IX and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1., No. 16-3522, 2017 WL 2331751 (7th Cir. 2017) the Seventh Circuit affirmed a Wisconsin District Court’s decision granting a transgender student a preliminary injunction to use the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity, rather than his biological sex. 

As we noted was a possible outcome in our prior analysis of the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of the Obama-era guidance on facilities use by transgender students, the Supreme Court has remanded Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. without issuing a decision.  Prior to this remand order, the Court was set to decide whether Title IX…