A case involving Mukwonago school bathroom policy is under renewed legal scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which ruled that sex-based distinctions in public school bathrooms do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The decision has major implications for a years-long lawsuit filed by a mother and her transgender child in the Mukwonago Area School District, challenging the district’s rule that students must use restrooms aligned with their biological sex.
Over the years-long legal process, a U.S. appeals court sided with the student, blocking the district from enforcing its policy against the student while the case is pending. Now, in the aftermath of the Skrmetti decision, this case—and similar cases around the country—must apply the ruling from the nation’s highest court.
The mother of the transgender child, who chose to remain anonymous in an interview with PBS Wisconsin, said:
“They moved [the school board meeting] from the normal area at the district office to the high school gymnasium. They were expecting a lot of people to show up. They called the police department,” said Jane Doe #2. “Parents came in, and they were essentially saying, ‘I’m not okay with this. You don’t get to do this. What about my kids?’”
With the Supreme Court’s decision now published, the school district and the plaintiffs in this case must resubmit arguments that take into account the court’s decision that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated in the instance of transgender status. It is now up to the plaintiff to argue a defense, which the Supreme Court overwhelmingly dismissed in their 6-3 decision. (RELATED: Incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Raised No Money Ahead of Election)
Looking back to the 2016 primaries and general election, supporters and critics of then-candidate Donald Trump often pointed to the importance of his term with respect to the potential Supreme Court appointments. With three of the six justices joining the majority opinion in the Skrmetti decision being Trump appointees, it’s worth considering how a different presidential outcome might have led to the affirmation of gender-identity-based policies at the nation’s highest court.
Notably, two of the three justices who dissented in the Skrmetti decision do not have children themselves that would be impacted by these kinds of policies. Justice Jackson, President Joe Biden’s appointee who has made headlines recently, was the sole dissenting voice who does have children of her own. (RELATED: Supreme Court Justices Clash in Controversial Case)