The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a district court’s preliminary order prohibiting a school district (District) from enforcing its policy that requires transgender students to use restrooms that are gender-neutral or correspond to their sex assigned at birth. D.P. v. Mukwonago Area School District, et al.
The District enacted a policy
requiring all students to use restrooms and locker room facilities according to
their sex assigned at birth, or otherwise use gender-neutral alternatives. The
policy included procedures allowing students to request an exception,
which would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the student and their
parents. Prior to adoption of the policy, a transgender middle-school student
(Student) regularly used the girls’ bathroom. Following
adoption of the policy, the Student and her mother sent a letter to the
District demanding that the policy be rescinded. The District responded,
offering to go through the evaluation process for an exception under its
policy. Shortly thereafter, the Student filed a federal lawsuit claiming
violations of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
At the time she filed her
lawsuit, the Student also submitted a motion seeking a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to prevent the District from enforcing the
policy while the case was ongoing. The District opposed the request for temporary relief but did not request an evidentiary hearing or submit any
additional evidence. The district court granted the Student’s request for a
TRO and—five days later—converted it to a preliminary
injunction prohibiting enforcement of the District’s policy until the case was
fully resolved. The District appealed the district court’s decision to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that (1) the judge erred by not holding
a hearing prior to granting the preliminary injunction, and (2) the preliminary
injunction should be voided because the Student was not likely to succeed on
the merits of her claims.
The Seventh Circuit ruled in
favor of the Student and upheld the preliminary injunction entered by the district court. The Seventh Circuit noted that an evidentiary hearing is only required when an opposing party raises
genuine issues of fact in response to a motion for preliminary injunction but because the District did not dispute the factual record established by the Student, and failed to request a hearing, the Court found no error in granting the preliminary injunction based solely on the written submissions of
the parties.
The Seventh Circuit also
determined that the preliminary injunction was properly entered because the
Student demonstrated she was likely to succeed in the case and would suffer
irreparable harm if she were made to comply with the District’s policy during
litigation. The Court cited several key cases addressing the issue of
transgender students’ use of restrooms and noted that the District’s policy
would likely be ruled unlawful discrimination based on sex under Title IX and
the Equal Protection Clause.
Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink