Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2020).pdf/31

 should not have to endure that as the price of attending their public school.”, 897 F.3d at 530.

This record does not demonstrate that the School Board has met its “demanding” constitutional burden by showing a substantial relationship between excluding transgender students from communal restrooms and student privacy. , 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S. Ct. at 2275. We therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of relief to Mr. Adams under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Mr. Adams also prevails on his Title IX claim. Title IX mandates that no person “shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

There is only one dispute about Mr. Adams’s Title IX claim: whether excluding Mr. Adams from the boys’ bathroom amounts to sex discrimination in violation of the statute. We conclude that this policy of exclusion constitutes discrimination. First, Title IX protects students from discrimination based on their transgender status. And second, the School District treated Mr. Adams differently because he was transgender, and this different treatment caused him harm. Finally,