Page:Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2021).pdf/16

 456, 464, 108 S. Ct. 1910, 1916 (1988) (invalidating a statute of limitations on paternity actions under heightened scrutiny because the limitation prescribed was “not substantially related to [the state’s] interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims”);, 411 U.S. 677, 689–91, 93 S. Ct. 1764, 1772 (1973) (plurality opinion) (rejecting a gender-based policy as arbitrary because the government did not show that the policy promoted “administrative convenience” by actually saving any money or time (quotation marks omitted)); , 972 F.3d 586, 620 (4th Cir. 2020) (Wynn, J., concurring) (agreeing in the judgment affirming that the challenged bathroom policy violated equal protection, because the policy “is arbitrary and provides no consistent reason” for assigning certain students to certain bathrooms), (Aug. 28, 2020), , 976 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2020), , ___ S. Ct. ___, 2021 WL 2637992 (June 28, 2021); , 858 F.3d at 1054 (noting that the school district’s documentation requirement behind its challenged bathroom policy, with its internal inconsistencies, “demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the policy”).

We also conclude the policy is impermissibly arbitrary in another way. The policy requires, without justification, that the School District reject information on current government records in favor of outdated information provided at the time the student enrolled. The record shows that the School District “will not change