Supreme Court rulings reshape transgender policies in public schools

In early March, the United States Supreme Court, in Mirabelli v. Bonta, dramatically shifted the balance of power between the ideologically motivated bureaucrats who run America’s public schools and the parents and students they would serve. As in Mahmoud v Taylor last year, the court was clear beyond doubt that parents have the fundamental right to raise and educate their children. Period. Schools should not facilitate a student’s “gender transition” without parental notice and permission.

Just days after Mirabelli, the left-leaning Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Anderson v. Crouch unanimously ruled that West Virginia’s decision to exclude gender reassignment surgeries from Medicaid coverage did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Building on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, the Fourth Circuit found that West Virginia’s Medicaid program did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but was a medically based policy that applied equally to both sexes seeking certain treatments for gender dysphoria.

The court also ruled that Medicaid does not discriminate based on a person’s alleged transgender status: A person—even someone who claims to be transgender—may be covered for a hysterectomy to treat uterine cancer, but the same does not apply to the procedure to treat gender dysphoria.

The decision in the Anderson case is monumental. Unlike Skrmetti, who only addresses the ban on medical treatments for gender dysphoria in children, Anderson applies to adults as well. This decision also heralds the inevitable collapse of the destructive ideological regime in public education that forces women to share bathrooms, locker rooms, and sporting events with men.

PARENTS, NOT BUREAUCRATS, RAISE AMERICA’S CHILDREN AND THE SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS

After all, policies requiring the separation of intimate spheres and sports on the basis of biological sex apply equally to both genders; This is the logic supported by the Fourth Circuit, which upheld West Virginia’s Medicaid exclusion.

These policies do not exclude individuals who claim to be transgender. No student, regardless of motivation, should use the locker room, bathroom, or play on a sports team designated for the opposite sex. A boy who wants to use the girls’ restroom because he is afraid of being bullied is subject to the same rules as a boy who wants to use the girls’ restroom because he believes he is a girl.

Of course, common-sense policies mandate separate bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams for men and women; just as West Virginia’s Medicaid restriction in Anderson was based on sound medical policy that states have a legitimate evidentiary interest in controlling Medicaid costs and ensuring medical necessities that do not arise from sex discrimination.

WATCHDOG CLAIMS NO ‘HARM’ IN CASE AGAINST TRUMP’S TRANS SURGERY BAN ON MINORS

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled less than a year ago in Roe v. The decision in the Critchfield case also explains this. Hardly a bastion of judicial conservatism, this appeals court found that the Idaho law requiring students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their biological sex neither violated the Equal Protection Clause nor did Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. He ruled that it did not violate its title.

These important decisions were not made in a vacuum. Before the end of June, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. , which clearly raised the question of whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause, or Title IX, by segregating sports teams by gender. He will announce his decision in the BPJ case.

The smart money says the court will respond in the negative and may signal directly or indirectly that toilets and changing rooms can likewise be separated on that basis. Such a decision would be welcome because it would give states the authority to pass laws protecting women’s sports and privacy without the constant threat of lawsuits from the ACLU and allied advocacy organizations.

SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION RECONCILIATES WITH MEN WHO ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT DUE TO THE TRANSGENDER STUDENT LOCKER ROOM INCIDENT

However, while a favorable Supreme Court decision would deal a major blow to the transgender agenda in public schools, it may not end the battle for common sense. Instead, all-blue states will likely continue to implement policies that undermine student privacy and security, even if they can no longer credibly argue that federal law compels them to do so.

Indeed, parents and students will continue to see situations like the one in New Richmond, Wisconsin, where school administrators told girls that if they felt uncomfortable sharing a bathroom or locker room with someone of the opposite sex, they should find a private alternative.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

These policies do not exclude individuals who claim to be transgender. No student, regardless of motivation, should use the locker room, bathroom, or play on a sports team designated for the opposite sex.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has taken enforcement action against school districts across the country, including New Richmond and some districts in Northern Virginia, on the grounds that their policies constitute sex discrimination under Title IX.

However, federal sanctions alone will not be enough to end this situation completely. Students and their families must catch up with the changing legal environment and apply maximum pressure. Students and parents should always be vigilant, challenge school policies, and be willing to sue school districts for violations of gender-based rights guaranteed to students by the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Parents have the right to parent their children, and children do not give up their rights when they walk through the school doors. It’s time to win this war, and the opportunity has never been greater.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM IAN PRIOR