Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/22

 tangible breaches of privacy). Simply put, the School Board singled out Mr. Adams’s use of the restroom as problematic, without showing that Adams did, in fact, flout or compromise the privacy of other boys when he was in the boys’ restroom.

The School Board next argues its bathroom policy survives heightened scrutiny because excluding transgender students from the restroom matching their gender identity keeps private the “different physiological characteristics between the two sexes.” The Board likens the bathroom policy to the government policies upheld in, 450 U.S. 464, 101 S. Ct. 1200 (1981), and , 533 U.S. 53, 121 S. Ct. 2053. We reject these comparisons as inapt.

held that a statutory rape law criminalizing sex with underage girls, but not boys, passed constitutional muster because its goal was to “prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies.” 450 U.S. at 470, 101 S. Ct. at 1205 (plurality opinion). The idea was that “young men and young women are not similarly situated with respect to the problems and the risks of sexual intercourse,” so the law bore a substantial relationship to the government’s important interest in reducing teenage pregnancies. at 471–72, 101 S. Ct. at 1205. likewise addressed pregnancy and childbirth. The Court upheld a statute allowing unmarried U.S. citizen mothers who gave birth abroad to establish citizenship for