On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that’s reverberating through schools, statehouses, and advocacy groups across the nation. In a move that keeps the status quo—at least for now—the highest court in the land refused to block a lower court’s order allowing a transgender ninth grader, identified as John Doe, to continue using the boys’ bathroom at his South Carolina high school. While the ruling doesn’t resolve the underlying legal battle, it’s the latest flashpoint in a national debate over the rights of transgender students and the powers of states to restrict them.
The story began last year, when John Doe, a 14-year-old student in the Berkeley County School District, was suspended after using the boys’ restroom, which aligns with his gender identity. According to multiple sources, including Law Dork and Politico, Doe’s suit against the state and its educational agencies quickly drew attention. The heart of the matter: a provision in South Carolina’s July 2024 budget measure that bars transgender students from using multi-occupancy public school restrooms that do not match their “biological sex”—defined strictly as the sex listed on the student’s original birth certificate.
That law, as reported by Politico, goes further than most. It threatens public K-12 schools with a 25 percent cut in state funding if they allow transgender students to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Critics say the measure is both punitive and discriminatory, while supporters argue it’s about maintaining order and privacy in schools. The legal wrangling escalated in August 2025, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an injunction blocking the state from enforcing its policy against John Doe. The court found that the law appeared to violate both Title IX—a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools—and the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Unwilling to let the matter rest, South Carolina’s leaders sought an expedited emergency ruling from the Supreme Court to overturn the Fourth Circuit’s decision. Their argument, as outlined in court documents, leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s own recent 6-3 decision upholding a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming medical care for minors. State officials contended that the appeals court’s injunction clashed with this precedent and undermined the authority of states to set policies for their schools.
But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to intervene. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices stated, “The denial of this application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation. Rather, it is based on the standards applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court.” Six justices—whose names were not specified in the order—denied South Carolina’s request. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have granted the state’s appeal, though none elaborated on their reasoning.
Legal experts and advocates were quick to parse the meaning of the order. As reported by Law Dork, the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t settle the underlying constitutional questions. Instead, it leaves the Fourth Circuit’s injunction in place while litigation continues in the lower courts. The standards for emergency relief—likelihood of success on the merits, the possibility of irreparable harm, and the public interest—were cited as the guiding principles for the denial. But the justices gave no further explanation, leaving observers to read between the lines.
For John Doe, the ruling means he can continue using the boys’ restroom at his school, at least for now. His lawyers welcomed the decision, emphasizing that the state will have opportunities to argue its case as the lawsuit proceeds. According to Law Dork, the state can still challenge the appeals court’s precedent, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on related issues. The case is far from over, and both sides are bracing for a protracted legal fight.
South Carolina officials struck a tone of disappointment mixed with resolve. Attorney General Alan Wilson said in a statement, “While we are disappointed in the Court’s decision today, we respect the process and will comply with the ruling. We are confident the law is on our side and will be upheld in the end.” That sentiment reflects a broader determination among state leaders to defend their policy, even as federal courts scrutinize its legality.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a flurry of related legal battles across the country. The justices have already agreed to hear several other cases during their upcoming October term that could reshape the legal landscape for transgender students. Among them are West Virginia v. B.P.J., which examines the legality of state bans on transgender girls participating in female sports teams, and Hecox v. Little, another case involving transgender athletes. There’s also Chiles v. Salazar, which questions whether Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy infringes on the free speech rights of Christian counselors. Oral arguments in these cases are expected to begin in October, and the outcomes could have sweeping consequences for schools, students, and state governments nationwide.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s handling of emergency requests—sometimes referred to as the "shadow docket"—has itself come under scrutiny. As noted by Law Dork, Chief Justice John Roberts recently issued “administrative stays” in two unrelated cases involving President Donald Trump, sparking debate about the standards and transparency of such rulings. Critics argue that these stays, though labeled “administrative,” can have immediate and substantive effects, raising questions about fairness and the proper role of the Court in urgent matters. The South Carolina bathroom case, though not decided on the shadow docket, was resolved through a similarly terse and expedited order, highlighting ongoing tensions about how the Court handles emergency appeals.
For families, students, and educators in South Carolina and beyond, the stakes are personal and immediate. Supporters of John Doe and other transgender students argue that access to restrooms that match their gender identity is a matter of dignity, safety, and equal treatment. Opponents, including some lawmakers and parents, contend that such policies infringe on the privacy and rights of other students. The debate is often emotional, and the legal questions are complex. But as the Supreme Court’s order makes clear, the ultimate answers are still forthcoming.
For now, John Doe’s daily life will remain unchanged, and South Carolina’s controversial policy is on hold. But with more cases on the horizon and passions running high, the nation’s highest court will almost certainly have the final word on the rights of transgender students in America’s schools.
