Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/16

 than young women. at 200, 97 S. Ct. at 458. The Court concluded that the statistical evidence did not demonstrate that gender was a “legitimate accurate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving.” at 202, 204, 97 S. Ct. at 459, 460. Then, even setting aside the problematic correlation of gender and drinking behavior, the Court observed that the statute as written did not even prevent young men from driving under the influence. This was because the law “prohibits only the selling of 3.2% beer to young males and not their drinking the beverage once acquired (even after purchase by their 18-20-year-old female companions).” at 204, 97 S. Ct. at 460. Thus, the Court decided that the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment because its terms did not achieve its statutory objective. Concurring separately, Justice Stewart observed that the statute’s terms “amount[ed] to total irrationality.” at 215, 97 S. Ct. at 466.

The School District’s bathroom policy suffers from this type of defect. We set aside for now that the policy treats transgender students differently than non-transgender students. The policy still runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment