⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears an Indiana school district's appeal over a transgender student's access to boys' restrooms. A.C. sued after Martinsville's school district barred him from those restrooms. A temporary injunction let him use them while the case proceeded. The district court later ruled the policy unlawful under Title Nine and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and granted a permanent injunction. Title Nine prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education. The district's policy assigns shared restrooms by sex at birth, without exceptions for transgender students. The school district will argue that its no-exceptions rule applies equally to everyone and protects student privacy. A.C. will argue that the rule depends on sex and the district hasn't shown that his restroom use threatens anyone's privacy. In B. P. J., the Supreme Court allowed states to reserve girls' school-sports teams for biological females. The lawyers disagree about whether that reasoning changes the rules for bathroom access.

A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville (No. 25-1094) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 2026.