*Montana and South Carolina both have bathroom ban laws on the books, but both states are currently involved in legal action. Montana’s HB121 is subject to an injunction and not currently enforced. South Carolina’s Budget Proviso is not a state law but rather a budgetary policy. It is also being challenged in court (Doe v. South Carolina). 

**Idaho’s latest ban, HB 752, was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. The law criminalizes using public restrooms that do not align with an individual’s birth sex and applies broadly to government‑owned buildings and many public accommodations, including libraries, airports, hospitals, public rest stops, malls, and other businesses. However, a federal court has issued a partial preliminary injunction limiting enforcement of the law in certain circumstances while litigation proceeds.

Court Cases on Bathroom Access

Bathroom access for transgender individuals has been litigated in various contexts, including workplaces, schools, and athletic facilities. And courts have reached vastly different conclusions over the past two decades. 

The cases below involve both federal and state courts. Federal appellate court decisions interpret federal laws like Title IX and apply across multiple states within their circuit. State supreme court decisions interpret state civil rights laws and are binding only within that state.

One of the earliest cases on this issue came from Minnesota.

In 2001, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Goins v. West Group that an employer requiring bathroom use based on “biological gender” was not discriminatory. This early case established a restrictive precedent in Minnesota employment settings. However, as noted above, Goins was only binding on Minnesota courts and employers.

Few other state supreme courts addressed bathroom access issues for transgender workers during this era. While some states added gender identity protections to their civil rights statutes (such as California in 2003), most disputes were resolved by state human rights commissions or settled before reaching appellate courts. 

During this period, many states addressed transgender rights through legislation rather than litigation. By 2020, over 20 states and the District of Columbia had added explicit protections for gender identity to their civil rights laws, while others issued administrative guidance through state human rights commissions. However, these protections rarely address bathroom access specifically, leaving that issue largely unresolved.

While workplaces saw little litigation, schools became the primary battleground for transgender bathroom access cases. Federal appellate courts examining the same federal laws (mainly Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause) reached opposite conclusions, creating a circuit split that persists today.

We explore some of these landmark cases below. 

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board (2015 – 2021)

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Binding precedent for Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

In 2015, transgender high schooler Gavin Grimm sued the Gloucester County School Board for gender discrimination under Title IX, for being required to use the girls’ bathroom instead of the boys’ bathroom that matched his gender preference. The federal district court initially held that the School Board had not discriminated and that Title IX did not include gender identity.

In 2016, the Fourth Circuit overturned the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for retrial, finding that the lower court failed to follow Department of Education guidelines and that the district court judge made prejudicial remarks. 

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the Fourth Circuit decision in 2017 because the Trump administration abandoned the OCR guidelines. The case was returned to the trial court, which ruled in Grimm’s favor in 2019. The School Board appealed in 2020, and the Fourth Circuit upheld that ruling. The Supreme Court declined to take the case in 2021, allowing the lower court decisions to stand. 

Ashton Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education (2017)

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Binding precedent for Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

Ashton (Ash) Whitaker, a transgender youth in Wisconsin, began publicly identifying as male in ninth grade. In his sophomore year, Ash requested permission to use the boys’ restrooms. The school denied the request and told him he had two options:

• Use the girls’ restrooms, or

• Use a single-user gender-neutral bathroom in the main office, far from his classrooms

Ash was the only student given access to the gender-neutral bathroom, which further singled him out amongst his classmates. To avoid using any restrooms, Ash began restricting his water intake at school. This exacerbated a medical condition that causes fainting and seizures when dehydrated. He also experienced severe depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

During his junior year, Ash used the boys’ restrooms for six months without incident or complaint from other students. However, after a teacher saw him washing his hands in a boys’ restroom, school administrators again prohibited his access. The school stated he would need “legal or medical documentation” to change his designation in school records. But they never provided a written policy explaining what documentation would suffice. Two letters from Ash’s pediatrician identifying him as transgender were deemed insufficient. School officials indicated that Ash would have to go through a surgical transition (a procedure that’s typically prohibited for minors) in order to use the boys’ bathrooms.

Security guards were instructed to monitor Ash’s bathroom use, and he was repeatedly removed from class to discuss policy violations. This drew attention from classmates and teachers, further intensifying his depression and anxiety.

Ash filed suit under federal civil rights laws and requested a preliminary injunction allowing him to use the boys’ restroom while the case was pending. The district court granted the injunction.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that Ash was likely to succeed on both his Title IX and equal protection claims. The court found that while the policy caused well-documented harm to Ash, the harms it aimed to prevent (identified by the school district) were all speculative.

The school initially appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, in 2018, it withdrew the appeal and settled.

Doe v. Boyertown Area School District (2017-2019)

Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Binding precedent for Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, U.S. Virgin Islands

In 2017, a student sued the Boyertown Area School District in Pennsylvania. They alleged that allowing transgender boys to use the same bathroom and locker room as the student violated their right to privacy.

The student asked for an injunction to prohibit the School District from allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender. The federal district court denied the student’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Third Circuit upheld the ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2019.

Parents for Privacy v. Dallas School District No. 2 (2015/2017-2020)

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Binding precedent for Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington

In 2015, a transgender boy asked to use the boys’ locker room at his Oregon high school. The school responded with a “Student Safety Plan” that allowed him and others to use the locker rooms, restrooms, and showers consistent with their gender identity. 

A group of parents and students sued two years later, citing privacy and religious freedom concerns. The federal district court dismissed the case.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari later that year.

Drew Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida (2017-2022)

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Binding precedent for Alabama, Florida, Georgia

In 2017, Drew Adams filed suit in federal district court against the St. Johns County School Board because he was required to use the girls’ bathroom or a gender-neutral bathroom instead of the bathroom that aligned with his gender preference. He alleged that the restrictions and bathroom policy violated his rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

A federal district court three-judge panel initially ruled for Adams. However, in 2021, the full Eleventh Circuit vacated the decision and reheard the appeal. In 2022, the full court held that Title IX allowed schools to determine gender based on biological sex.

This created the circuit split. The Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits found that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. 

Despite this split and continued requests for clarification, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed out of the debate, denying certiorari on at least three occasions since 2019. The Court has allowed laws on both sides of the issue to stand, permitting schools to both allow and deny transgender bathroom access.

The Supreme Court Weighs In

In 2020, the Supreme Court‘s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County held that discrimination against people for their sexual orientation and gender identity was prohibited in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The decision represented a major victory for LGBTQ+ workplace rights.

However, the decision was narrow. The justices made it clear that it did not address bathroom access. Justice Alito raised concerns about the decision’s potential impact on bathroom policies for schools and gyms in his dissent, but the majority explicitly stated this ruling did not decide those issues.

Following Bostock, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued guidance with best practices for bathroom access for transgender employees. The main requirement was to create safe and convenient access to bathrooms consistent with an employee’s gender identity. These best practices told employers they could not require employees to provide medical or legal documentation of their gender identity as a prerequisite to using the bathroom that aligns with their gender.

After Bostock, some state courts began reconsidering earlier restrictive precedents, while the unresolved circuit split in school cases continued to widen.

N.H. v. Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 (2020)

In 2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals distinguished the state’s earlier Goins decision, holding that Goins‘ restrictive employment precedent does not apply in educational settings. The court concluded that restricting locker room access based on gender identity violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act. While Anoka-Hennepin involved a school rather than a workplace, it signaled Minnesota courts’ willingness to limit Goins‘ reach.

Cooper v. USA Powerlifting (2025)

In 2025, in a case involving athletic facility access, the Minnesota Supreme Court further clarified that Goins was a narrow decision specifically tied to “employment” and “sexual orientation” definitions as they existed in 1997–2001. This suggests the court may not be willing to apply Goins to current gender identity claims.

Federal Restrictions

Beginning in 2025, federal policy shifted dramatically toward more restrictive interpretations of transgender rights, including bathroom access.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14168, which fundamentally changed federal policy regarding transgender individuals. The order defines “sex” as an immutable biological classification as either male or female, explicitly stating that sex is “not changeable” and excludes the concept of “gender identity.”

The order directs all federal agencies to use these definitions when interpreting and applying federal law. It also requires that sex-segregated spaces—including bathrooms, prisons, shelters, and detention facilities—be designated by biological sex rather than gender identity. It specifically addresses the Supreme Court‘s Bostock decision, directing the Attorney General to issue guidance clarifying that Bostock does not require gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under laws like Title IX.

The order also mandates that federal agencies remove all policies promoting “gender ideology,” revise government-issued identification documents to reflect biological sex, and ensure that federal funds are not used to support gender identity-based policies. It rescinds multiple prior executive orders and guidance documents that had extended protections to transgender individuals.

Later that year, the state of Texas filed suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the agency had overstepped its mandate and misinterpreted portions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The judge in that case agreed and ordered the EEOC to remove portions of the guidance specifically referring to transgender individuals.

In January 2026, the EEOC rescinded previous guidance on the issue of misgendering transgender individuals in the workplace. The guidance had included detailed hypotheticals of what might and might not be considered “harassment” and how employers might deal with such issues in their own workplaces.

The EEOC board stated that, in their view, “sex” as defined in the Supreme Court‘s decision Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) only refers to biological sexual markers and not to gender identity, and that protections in Bostock only extend to adverse actions such as termination.

In February 2026, the EEOC ruled 2-1 that federal agencies may require transgender employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their birth sex. The case involved a civilian worker at a military facility.

In the first case of its kind filed since the EEOC ruling and Executive Order #14168, Withrow v. United States is a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of all individuals affected by the order. Withrow was filed in December 2025 and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer in March 2026. This case remains open.

Eventually, the Supreme Court may need to offer lower courts guidance on this complex matter, though it has shown no indication of doing so yet.

Getting Legal Help

If you are facing discrimination or need guidance navigating transgender bathroom access laws, consulting with an experienced attorney is an important first step. FindLaw’s attorney directory can connect you with legal professionals who handle these cases:

• For Title IX, Due Process, First Amendment, or other civil rights issues, contact a civil rights lawyer in your area.

• For workplace matters, including wage or hour matters, hostile workplace environment, or bathroom discrimination, reach out to an employment lawyer.

• Discrimination lawyers can help with access, ADA accommodations, 504 access, housing, and other issues.

Additional Resources

For more information about your rights and help finding specialized legal representation, these organizations offer resources and referrals:

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has chapters in every state and can provide information about transgender rights and legal resources.

• Lambda Legal specializes in LGBTQ+ rights and can provide information and referrals to attorneys experienced in transgender legal issues.