WASHINGTON _ The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear its first case on transgender rights, which could determine whether schools nationwide may force students to use restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificates.
The case, stemming from a Virginia dispute involving a transgender boy, will be heard early next year, either by the current eight-member court or with a new ninth justice nominated by the winner of the presidential election.
The justices will hear an appeal from the Gloucester County (Va.) School Board, which adopted a rule requiring students to use the restrooms that correspond to their "biological genders."
Gavin Grimm, a 17-year-old transgender boy, sued the school district, alleging that the policy was illegal sex discrimination. He received the support of the U.S. Education Department and won a 2-1 ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
The justices will decide whether to uphold the Obama administration's interpretation of an existing sex-discrimination statute, or rule that the agency had no authority to set rules for how schools and colleges should treat transgender students.
Grimm said he did not expect his request to use the boys' restroom to end up in the Supreme Court.
"I never thought that my restroom use would ever turn into any kind of national debate. The only thing I ever asked for was the right to be treated like everyone else," he said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents him.
"While I'm disappointed that I will have to spend my final school year being singled out and treated differently from every other guy, I will do everything I can to make sure that other transgender students don't have to go through the same experience," he said.
While the appeals court ruled in his favor, the Supreme Court justices voted 5-3 in August to put that decision on hold while they reviewed the case.
The courts' three most liberal justices _ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan _ dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer said he voted with the court's conservatives "as a courtesy" so the full court could consider decide the case.
The legal question before the court involves whether judges should defer to agencies that reinterpret their own regulations.
In 1972, Congress passed the Title IX amendment, which said schools and colleges may not discriminate against students on the basis of sex.
The regulations do not prevent schools from providing separate toilet, locker rooms and shower facilities for girls and boys, or having separate women's and men's sports teams.
But last year, an Education Department lawyer issued an opinion letter in Grimm's case declaring that denying him the use of the boy's restrooms was illegal sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. It was the first time the regulation had been so used to protect transgender students.
In May, the Education Department issued a national guidance letter advising all schools and colleges that, under federal law, they "must allow transgender students access" to restrooms, locker rooms and dormitories that fit their "gender identity."
Lawyers for the Gloucester County School Board called the guidance an "extreme" and unwarranted change in the law. They argued that schools had traditionally provided separate restrooms for students based on their biological genders. And they said the Education Department did not have the authority to change the law without the approval of Congress.
The appeals court disagreed, deciding that the school board should defer to the agency officials in charge of enforcing the Title IX law.
Shortly after that decision, a federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of Texas and more than 20 other conservative states that sued to challenge the Education Department's policy. The judge issued a nationwide order blocking its enforcement.
That decision may have helped persuade the justices that they needed to clarify the law.
But Grimm's lawsuit is limited. He sought only use of the boy's restroom. He did not raise the issue of locker rooms or showers. And the school district in response offered him the use of a separate unisex restroom.
Following the court's normal schedule, arguments in the case_Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. _ would be heard in late February or March.
If the Senate moved quickly after the election, it could vote to confirm Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee, and he could be seated in time to participate in the transgender rights case.
But it is also possible the ninth seat may remain vacant in the spring, creating the prospect that the justices could split 4 to 4 and be unable to rule.
