Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/11

 We turn first to Mr. Adams’s constitutional claim.

The Fourteenth Amendment promises “the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. When state actors draw distinctions using sex or gender, this constitutional mandate “call[s] for a heightened standard of review.”, 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3254 (1985). Because sex or gender “generally provide[] no sensible ground for differential treatment,”, the Equal Protection Clause tolerates only “exceedingly persuasive” classifications based on sex or gender, (“”), 518 U.S. 515, 534, 555, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 2276, 2286 (1996). “A gender classification fails unless it is substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest.”, 473 U.S. at 441, 105 S. Ct. at 3255. “Ever since the Supreme Court began to apply heightened scrutiny to sex-based classifications, its consistent purpose has been to eliminate discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes.”, 663 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011).

Mr. Adams and the School Board are in agreement that our Court is required to review the School District’s bathroom policy with heightened scrutiny. Although this standard of review is not in dispute, we first review why heightened scrutiny is warranted in order to chart a course for our analysis.