## Facts

- Three transgender high school seniors attended a public high school in the Pine-Richland School District and lived consistently with their gender identities at school and elsewhere.
- For several years, the school permitted transgender students to use multi-user restrooms consistent with their gender identity, and the record reflected no incidents of misconduct linked to that practice.
- School staff and students generally treated the plaintiffs consistent with their gender identities in all respects other than restroom access.
- Multi-user restrooms included privacy features such as locking stall doors and partitions.
- In 2016, the school board adopted a resolution requiring students to use restrooms corresponding to their “biological sex” (assigned sex at birth) or to use single-user unisex restrooms.
- The policy exposed plaintiffs to potential discipline, including suspension, if they used multi-user restrooms consistent with their gender identities.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX and moved for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the policy as applied to them.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of an Equal Protection claim that the restroom policy unlawfully classified and burdened transgender students on the basis of sex and/or transgender status.
2. Whether plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief.
3. Whether the balance of harms and the public interest favored an injunction.
4. Whether plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of success under Title IX to support preliminary relief.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the district to allow the three plaintiffs to use common restrooms consistent with their gender identities during the litigation.
- The injunction rested on Equal Protection grounds; the court did not base relief on Title IX at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- The court found a likelihood of success because the policy imposed differential treatment tied to sex and required heightened scrutiny.
- The district’s asserted privacy justifications were found speculative and unsupported by evidence, given the lack of incidents and existing privacy measures.
- The court found irreparable harm from ongoing stigma and dignitary injury, minimal countervailing burden on the district, and that enforcing constitutional protections served the public interest.
- The relief was limited to the three named plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- Preliminary injunctions require consideration of: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm, (3) balance of harms, and (4) public interest.
- A policy that draws lines by “biological sex” and operates to single out transgender students can constitute a sex-based classification triggering heightened scrutiny under Equal Protection.
- Under heightened scrutiny, the government must provide an exceedingly persuasive justification, and the classification must be substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- Privacy interests in restrooms may be important, but speculative concerns and unsupported predictions are insufficient to justify a sex-based classification, especially where existing rules and facility design already protect privacy.
- Ongoing dignitary and stigmatic harms from unequal treatment can constitute irreparable injury for purposes of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined enforcement of a school restroom policy against three transgender students because the record showed the policy likely violated the Equal Protection Clause by singling them out on a sex-related basis without an adequately supported privacy justification, and because continued enforcement would cause irreparable harm not remediable by damages.


Evancho v. Pine-Richland Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 3d 267 (W.D. Pa. 2017)