The ongoing struggle over transgender rights in the United States took center stage this week, as two major developments—one in Congress and another at the Supreme Court—highlighted the complex legal and political battles facing transgender Americans in 2025. On September 10, U.S. Representative Sarah McBride publicly criticized Republican lawmakers for blocking amendments related to transgender military service in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), accusing them of betraying those who volunteer to serve in the armed forces. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court declined to allow South Carolina to enforce a law banning transgender students from using school bathrooms that align with their gender identity, a decision that—while temporary—signals the contentious and unsettled nature of transgender rights in America’s schools and beyond.
According to The Advocate, Rep. McBride, a Delaware Democrat and the highest-ranking openly transgender elected official in U.S. history, did not mince words: "Lawmakers were betraying those who volunteer to wear the uniforms of the U.S. military" by blocking the proposed amendments. The amendments in question sought to protect the ability of transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, a right that has been repeatedly debated and reversed in recent years. McBride’s comments came amid a broader push by Democrats to enshrine protections for LGBTQ service members in federal law, following a period when such rights have been rolled back or threatened by executive actions and state-level legislation.
"It’s not just about policy," McBride argued. "It’s about dignity, respect, and honoring the service of every American willing to defend this country." Her remarks reflected growing frustration among LGBTQ advocates, who see the repeated targeting of transgender Americans—whether in the military, schools, or public life—as part of a coordinated political strategy. Republicans, for their part, have argued that military readiness and unit cohesion are paramount, and some have cited concerns about cost and logistics as reasons to oppose the proposed amendments.
While the fight over transgender military service played out in Congress, the Supreme Court was quietly shaping the future of transgender rights in America’s schools. On the same day as McBride’s remarks, the nation’s highest court declined an emergency request from South Carolina to enforce a ban on transgender students using bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity. The law, passed as part of a series of state budget bills, required students to use single-sex school bathrooms based on their sex assigned at birth.
The case centers on a student identified in court documents as John Doe, who was in eighth grade when the ban was enacted. Doe, along with his parents, sued the school district outside Charleston, alleging that the bathroom policy violated federal law and the Constitution’s equal protection clause. After a federal district court put the litigation on hold, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously sided with Doe and his family, blocking the ban’s enforcement—at least for now.
South Carolina officials, seeking to overturn the appeals court’s decision, pointed to recent Supreme Court actions: in late June, the justices allowed a Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors to stand, and this summer, the court agreed to hear a case on whether states may ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity. State attorneys argued that these moves undermined the earlier 4th Circuit precedent, established in the 2016 Gavin Grimm case, which permitted transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity within the circuit’s jurisdiction.
But the Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, denied South Carolina’s emergency request. The order explicitly stated that the decision was "not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation." Instead, the court said, "it is based on the standards applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this court." In other words, the justices were not weighing in on the constitutionality of the bathroom ban, but rather deciding whether the state had met the high bar for emergency intervention while the case continues in the lower courts.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—indicated they would have granted South Carolina’s request, underscoring the ideological divisions that continue to shape the court’s approach to LGBTQ rights. The court’s decision, though limited in scope, leaves the 4th Circuit’s block on the ban in place for now, allowing John Doe to return to school without facing suspension for using the boys’ bathroom.
This latest legal battle is just one of many unfolding across the country as states pass laws restricting transgender rights in schools, sports, and healthcare. According to CNN, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to wade into the merits of the South Carolina case comes at a time when transgender Americans are facing what many advocates describe as an unprecedented wave of political and cultural setbacks. Earlier this year, the court allowed the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service to take effect, reversing a previous policy that had permitted open service by transgender individuals.
The legal landscape remains unsettled. Four years ago, the Supreme Court allowed the 4th Circuit’s decision in the Gavin Grimm case to stand, but stopped short of setting a nationwide precedent. As a result, the issue of transgender students’ access to bathrooms and sports teams remains a patchwork, with different rules in different parts of the country. The high court’s agreement to hear the upcoming case on transgender participation in sports suggests that a more definitive ruling could be on the horizon, with implications for schools and students nationwide.
For families like John Doe’s, the stakes could hardly be higher. Advocates argue that policies excluding transgender students from facilities that match their gender identity not only violate their rights, but also contribute to stigma and mental health challenges. Opponents of such policies, however, insist that privacy and safety concerns justify single-sex spaces based on sex assigned at birth. These debates are playing out in statehouses, school boards, and, increasingly, in federal courts.
Back in Congress, Rep. McBride and her allies are vowing to keep fighting. "We owe it to every American in uniform to ensure they are treated with fairness and respect," she said. The battle over transgender rights—whether in the military, the classroom, or the playing field—shows no signs of abating. For now, the courts and lawmakers remain the arbiters of these deeply personal and profoundly political questions, with the lives of thousands of Americans hanging in the balance.
As the legal and political wrangling continues, one thing is clear: the future of transgender rights in America will be shaped by the decisions made in courtrooms and legislative chambers alike, with consequences that will resonate for generations to come.