The national tug-of-war over school bathroom access is back in front of the Supreme Court of the United States SCOTUS.
At the center of the latest emergency appeal is a South Carolina school district caught between conflicting legal mandates: a federal court order requiring access based on gender identity, and a state law that mandates bathroom use according to biological sex. The state is asking the justices to intervene, warning that schools are being forced to choose between violating state law or defying federal courts.
This case, South Carolina v. Doe, is more than a local dispute. It’s the latest flashpoint in a years-long battle over how Title IX should be interpreted and whether student privacy and sex-separated spaces can be protected in an era of shifting federal rules and judicial uncertainty.
The Case: South Carolina v. Doe
The controversy began when a “transgender” student, identified in court documents as “John Doe,” sued the school district for enforcing a state law that requires students to use bathrooms corresponding to their biological sex at birth. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ordered the school to allow Doe to use the boys’ bathroom while litigation continues.
South Carolina responded by filing an emergency application with the Supreme Court, arguing that the district is “now stuck between an impossible rock and hard place”, forced to choose between violating state law or defying a federal court order
Title IX: The Legal Battleground Beneath the Surface
At the heart of this case is Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. But what “sex” means under Title IX has changed dramatically depending on who’s in the White House.
- Under Biden’s rules, “sex” was redefined to include gender identity, allowing students to access bathrooms and sports teams aligned with their gender identity.
- In 2025, the President Trump reversed course, restoring the 2020 definition of sex as biological male or female, and removed gender identity from Title IX protections.
This regulatory whiplash has left courts in a legal fog. The 4th Circuit relied on Grimm v. Gloucester (2020), a decision rooted in Biden-era logic, which held that denying bathroom access based on gender identity violated both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
But South Carolina argues that Grimm is a “discredited outlier” and incompatible with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors using a deferential “rational basis” standard.
“Skrmetti is irreconcilable with Grimm,” wrote Deputy Solicitor General Joseph Spate. The Supreme Court, he emphasized, “rejected Grimm’s view of discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’”
This case is a litmus test for how far states can go in defending biological sex-based distinctions in public education, but it’s also a wake-up call for parents. Even with Trump-era protections restored, the courts remain divided, and lower federal rulings often reflect activist interpretations of Title IX. The reality is, no single president or policy can shield your child’s privacy unless parents stay engaged, show up, and demand accountability at every level, from school boards to the Supreme Court.
South Carolina’s law ties school funding to compliance: districts that fail to enforce biological sex-based bathroom policies risk losing 25% of their state funding. That’s not just policy—it’s accountability.
“Unless the Supreme Court steps in,” Spate warned, “the State, the school district, and its students are suffering actual, ongoing, material harms.”
By contrast, Doe would still have access to single-stall restrooms and multi-occupancy girls’ restrooms if the 4th Circuit’s order were blocked.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court has requested a response to South Carolina’s emergency application from the opposing party in the case, a “transgender” student known in court filings as John Doe. The student’s legal team must submit their reply by Friday, Sept. 5 at 4 p.m. Once that response is in, the justices could issue a decision within days, potentially signaling how the Court will handle future challenges to gender identity mandates in public schools
This is a moment for citizen advocates to pay close attention. If the Court grants South Carolina’s request, it could signal a shift toward reaffirming the constitutional and statutory basis for sex-separated spaces in schools.
Support the Fight for Parental Rights and Policy Transparency
We’re a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization working to protect truth, privacy, and constitutional accountability. Your donation helps us respond quickly to policy threats, mobilize citizens, and hold leaders accountable. Thank you for supporting our work!