The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to temporarily allow South Carolina to enforce a state law that bars students from using public school bathrooms that match their gender identity, issuing a brief unsigned order that left in place a federal appeals court injunction.
The order was issued without explanation and does not address the merits of the underlying dispute, leaving a lawsuit over the policy to continue in the lower courts. The decision represented a setback for South Carolina officials, who had asked the high court to lift the Fourth Circuit's pause while the state seeks review.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had entered the temporary injunction at the request of a ninth-grade student identified as John Doe in the lawsuit. John Doe sought to use the boys' bathroom at his public school, which the complaint says corresponds with his gender identity rather than his sex assigned at birth. Attorneys for the student told the Supreme Court that an emergency pause of the Fourth Circuit's order was not warranted because the lawsuit concerns a single student and other students have not complained about sharing facilities with him.
"Indeed, no student has ever complained about sharing boys’ restrooms with John, who has dressed and presented as a boy since he was a young child," the student's attorneys wrote in their filings. South Carolina officials argued the injunction should be lifted so the law could take effect while the state pursues further review, saying the matter implicated public-policy questions best left to lawmakers.
Three justices appointed by Republican presidents—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch—would have granted South Carolina's request, the court's order noted. The majority of justices, however, declined to intervene at this stage.
The Supreme Court's refusal to act gives little indication of how the justices might rule on the legal questions underlying the case. The order comes after the court in June upheld a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors, and ahead of arguments in the upcoming term in a closely watched case over state bans on transgender athletes' participation in school sports.
South Carolina lawyers referenced the sports case in their emergency filing, arguing that the issue is part of a broader national debate and that courts should defer to state legislatures while appeals proceed. The legal fight in South Carolina centers on whether the state's policy violates federal civil-rights laws and constitutional protections claimed by the student.
Because the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits, the lower-court litigation will determine the next steps. The Fourth Circuit's injunction remains in place while the case moves through the courts, and lower-court proceedings will address factual and legal issues that could ultimately prompt further appeals.
Legal observers said the procedural posture leaves the status quo unchanged for students in the district involved in the case, even as similar disputes unfold around the country and in state legislatures. The outcome in the South Carolina litigation could affect how other courts evaluate claims that school bathroom policies and related laws comply with federal law.
The case does not mark a final determination of constitutional or statutory rights. It preserves current practice for the student who brought the lawsuit while the courts consider broader legal questions, and it ensures the dispute will be resolved through the regular appellate process rather than by emergency intervention from the nation's highest court.
