"In a terse, unsigned order, the justices, by an apparent 6-3 vote, rejected the state's request for emergency relief, stressing that the denial was "not a ruling on the merits" of the case but instead reflected the court's standards for extraordinary intervention. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented and said they would have granted the state's request."
"The challenged provision, enacted in 2024 as a budget rider, punishes school districts that allow transgender students access to restrooms consistent with their identity by stripping away a quarter of their state funding. The student at the center of the case was suspended for using the boys' restroom, prompting his family, backed by the advocacy group Alliance for Full Acceptance, to sue."
The Supreme Court declined to grant emergency relief, leaving intact a Fourth Circuit injunction that permits a 15-year-old transgender boy in Berkeley County to use the boys' restroom while litigation continues. The contested 2024 budget-rider provision would strip a quarter of state funding from school districts that allow restroom access consistent with students' gender identity. The Fourth Circuit relied on Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which held that bathroom bans violate Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. South Carolina urged the high court to rethink Grimm in light of recent rulings such as United States v. Skrmetti. Three justices dissented.
Read at Advocate.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]