4:15-cv-00054-RGD-DEM) G. G., by his next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

PUBLISHED
FILED: May 31, 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 15-2056
(4:15-cv-00054-RGD-DEM)
___________________
G. G., by his next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant - Appellee,
------------------------------
JUDY CHIASSON, Ph. D., School Administrator California; DAVID
VANNASDALL, School Administrator California; DIANA K. BRUCE, School
Administrator District of Columbia; DENISE PALAZZO, School
Administrator Florida; JEREMY MAJESKI, School Administrator
Illinois; THOMAS A ABERLI, School Administrator Kentucky; ROBERT
BOURGEOIS, School Administrator Massachusetts; MARY DORAN, School
Administrator Minnesota; VALERIA SILVA, School Administrator
Minnesota; RUDY RUDOLPH, School Administrator Oregon; JOHN
O'REILLY, School Administrator New York; LISA LOVE, School
Administrator Washington; DYLAN PAULY, School Administrator
Wisconsin; SHERIE HOHS, School Administrator Wisconsin; THE
NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; LEGAL MOMENTUM; THE ASSOCIATION OF
TITLE IV ADMINISTRATORS; EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES; GENDER JUSTICE;
THE WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT; LEGAL VOICE; LEGAL AID SOCIETY -
EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER; SOUTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; CALIFORNIA
WOMEN'S LAW CENTER; THE WORLD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
TRANSGENDER HEALTH; PEDIATRIC ENDOCRINE SOCIETY; CHILD AND
ADOLESCENT GENDER CENTER CLINIC AT UCSF BENIOFF CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL; CENTER FOR TRANSYOUTH HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT AT
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES; GENDER & SEX DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
AT ANN & ROBERT H. LURIE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF CHICAGO; FAN FREE
CLINIC; WHITMAN-WALKER CLINIC, INC., d/b/a Whitman-Walker Health;
GLMA: HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ADVANCING LGBT EQUALITY; TRANSGENDER LAW

-- 1 of 5 --

2
& POLICY INSTITUTE; GENDER BENDERS; GAY, LESBIAN & STRAIGHT
EDUCATION NETWORK; GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE NETWORK; INSIDEOUT; EVIE
PRIESTMAN; ROSMY; TIME OUT YOUTH; WE ARE FAMILY; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; MICHELLE FORCIER, M.D.; NORMAN SPACK, M.D.,
Amici Supporting Appellant,
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PAUL R. LEPAGE, In his official capacity
as Governor State of Maine; STATE OF ARIZONA; THE FAMILY FOUNDATION
OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; JOHN WALSH; STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA; LORRAINE WALSH; PATRICK L. MCCRORY, In his official
capacity as Governor State of North Carolina; MARK FRECHETTE;
JUDITH REISMAN, Ph. D.; JON LYNSKY; LIBERTY CENTER FOR CHILD
PROTECTION; BRADLY FRIEDLIN; LISA TERRY; LEE TERRY; DONALD CAULDER;
WENDY CAULDER; KIM WARD; ALICE MAY; JIM RUTAN; ISSAC RUTAN; DORETHA
GUJU; DOCTOR RODNEY AUTRY; PASTOR JAMES LARSEN; DAVID THORNTON;
KATHY THORNTON; JOSHUA CUBA; CLAUDIA CLIFTON; ILONA GAMBILL; TIM
BYRD; EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION AND LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
Amici Supporting Appellee.
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
Appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc and filings relating
to the petition were circulated to the full court.
No judge having requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35 on
the petition for rehearing en banc, the petition is denied.
Judge Niemeyer wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial of
the petition for rehearing.
Entered at the direction of Judge Floyd.
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

-- 2 of 5 --

3
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of the petition
for rehearing:
Bodily privacy is historically one of the most basic elements
of human dignity and individual freedom. And forcing a person of
one biological sex to be exposed to persons of the opposite
biological sex profoundly offends this dignity and freedom. Have
we not universally condemned as inhumane such forced exposure
throughout history as it occurred in various contexts, such as in
prisons? And do parents not universally find it offensive to think
of having their children’s bodies exposed to persons of the
opposite biological sex?
Somehow, all of this is lost in the current Administration’s
service of the politically correct acceptance of gender
identification as the meaning of “sex” -- indeed, even when the
statutory text of Title IX provides no basis for the position. The
Department of Education and the Justice Department, in a circular
maneuver, now rely on the majority’s opinion to mandate application
of their position across the country, while the majority’s opinion
had relied solely on the Department of Education’s earlier
unprecedented position. The majority and the Administration --
novelly and without congressional authorization -- conclude that
despite Congress’s unambiguous authorization in Title IX to provide
for the separation of restrooms, showers, locker rooms, and dorms
on the basis of sex, see 20 U.S.C. § 1686; 34 C.F.R. §§ 106.32,

-- 3 of 5 --

4
106.33, they can override these provisions by redefining sex to
mean how any given person identifies himself or herself at any
given time, thereby, of necessity, denying all affected persons the
dignity and freedom of bodily privacy. Virtually every
civilization’s norms on this issue stand in protest.
These longstanding norms are not a protest against persons who
identify with a gender different from their biological sex. To the
contrary, schools and the courts must, with care, seek to
understand their condition and address it in permissible ways that
are as helpful as possible in the circumstances. But that is not
to say that, to do so, we must bring down all protections of bodily
privacy that are inherent in individual human dignity and freedom.
Nor must we reject separation-of-powers principles designed to
safeguard Congress’s policymaking role and the States’ traditional
powers.
While I could call for a poll of the court in an effort to
require counsel to reargue their positions before an en banc
court, the momentous nature of the issue deserves an open road to
the Supreme Court to seek the Court’s controlling construction of
Title IX for national application. And the facts of this case,
in particular, are especially “clean,” such as to enable the
Court to address the issue without the distraction of subservient
issues. For this reason only and not because the issue is not
sufficiently weighty for our en banc court, I am not requesting a

-- 4 of 5 --

5
poll on the petition for rehearing en banc. I do, however, vote
to grant panel rehearing, which I recognize can only be symbolic
in view of the majority’s approach, which deferred to the
Administration’s novel position with a questionable application
of Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Time is of the essence,
and I can only urge the parties to seek Supreme Court review.

-- 5 of 5 --