Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/30

, 408 F. Supp. 3d 536, 578 (M.D. Pa. 2019) (granting summary judgment to transgender girl on equal protection claim for access to girls’ restroom because school district failed to demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification);, 400 F. Supp. 3d at 461 (same, for transgender boy);, 237 F. Supp. 3d 267, 293 (W.D. Pa. 2017) (holding transgender students showed likelihood of success on equal protection claim to access restrooms matching gender identity);, 208 F. Supp. 3d 850, 877 (S.D. Ohio 2016) (same, with transgender girl).

Although this issue is not before us here, we are aware that the Third and Ninth Circuits have rejected claims from non-transgender students that their school violated their fundamental right to privacy by separating boys’ and girls’ bathrooms based on gender identity. , 949 F.3d at 1221–26 (affirming dismissal of non-transgender students’ constitutional privacy claim);, 897 F.3d at 530–31 (holding that non-transgender students could not establish likelihood of success on constitutional privacy claim). And we subscribe to the thinking of the Third Circuit when it said that requiring “transgender student[s] to use single-user facilities” under an assigned-sex-at-birth-based bathroom policy “would very publicly brand all transgender students with a scarlet ‘T,’ and they