Students and Parents for Privacy v. The U.S. Department of Education (USA)

On May 4, Students and Parents for Privacy (an unincorporated association of five minors and their parents) filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the School Directors of Township High School District 211, Cook County, Illinois.  The complaint states the Plaintiffs seek “to stop the Department of Education (“DOE”) and Township High School District 211 (“District 211” or “District”) from continuing to trample students’ privacy and other constitutional and statutory rights by forcing 14- to 17-year-old girls to use locker rooms and restrooms with biological males; and to set aside DOE’s ultra vires legislative rule redefining “sex” in Title IX to include gender identity.”  On May 23 Students and Parents for Privacy filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, “to enjoin enforcement of the Locker Room Agreement, by which the Defendants allow a biological male student access to the locker rooms designated for girls, and also the Restroom Policy, by which the Defendant School Directors allow restroom entry and usage based on gender identity, irrespective of biological sex.  The Plaintiffs also respectfully move this Court for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendants Department of Education and Department of Justice from taking any action based on the Department of Education’s new rule that redefines the word “sex” inTitle IX.”  U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Alonso referred the Motion for Preliminary Injunction to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T Gilbert, seeking a report and recommendation on whether to grant or deny the motion.  As Judge Gilbert explains, “Preliminary injunctive relief is granted only when the moving parties — here, Plaintiffs — make a clear showing that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims…”  He adds that the moving parties must also show “they will suffer more harm if an injunction is not issued than the non-moving parties will suffer if it is issued…”  As the report continues, Judge Gilbert explains that the Plaintiffs have not shown they have a likelihood of success, given recent rulings by other courts around the country considering the definition of “sex” under Title IX.  He also writes that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Defendants are violating their right to privacy or violating Title IX, stating, “High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs.”  He concludes by recommending “to Judge Alonso that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied.”

Students and Parents v. U.S. Department of Education — U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T Gilbert — Oct 18, 2016

5 thoughts on “Students and Parents for Privacy v. The U.S. Department of Education (USA)

  1. This order has set women and girls back so far. I no longer go to the gym or change in dressing rooms. I don’t need to worry what a man may do to me in there. A “let’s wait and see what happens” attitude. I don’t want to be seen by other women, must less a man!

  2. Now each time I use a public restroom, I must always ask who will be allowed in there with me. If it’s a “FREE FOR ALL”, I’ll take the chance and go in the street. I’m safer doing so. I would rather be caught by a police officer on the street, than a man in the bathroom with me.

  3. Omg. This is insane. And both are male judges.

    But then, Loretta Lynch is female. 😦

    Do they have further recourse, please?

    Thank you for posting legal developments regarding sex-based rights.

  4. Chromosome XX unite! We should protest nationwide. Buy a “Go Girl” and pretend to pee any and everywhere.
    Since we are being forced to share bathrooms with men, we may as well act like them.

Comments are closed.