Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/13

 identity.” In this way, the policy places a special burden on transgender students because their gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth. And, as this Court announced in, “discrimination against a transgender individual because of [his or] her gender-nonconformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender.” 663 F.3d at 1317; , 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741 (2020) (confirming that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being … transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex”). We therefore apply heightened scrutiny to the School Board bathroom policy. , 663 F.3d at 1320.

Next, we recognize an important government interest behind the School Board’s bathroom policy. Out of concern for students’ privacy, the School Board adopted a policy prohibiting Mr. Adams and other transgender students from using the restrooms matching their gender identity. We believe the School Board’s goal is a worthy one. Protecting the bodily privacy of young students is undoubtedly an important government interest. , 858 F.3d 1034, 1052 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding a