Gavin Grimm addressing the Gloucester County School Board in 2015, petitioning for the right to use the boys bathroom and explaining why he is not a threat to other students.
Firelight Media and Field of Vision have joined together to create a series that tell stories of members of vulnerable communities in this "current, polarized climate." One episode of this collaboration is dedicated to telling the story of Gavin Grimm, his courtroom experience, and the impact of the 2016 election.
In April of 2017, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that the District Court entered in June 2016.
Justice Davis, in his concurrence, stated that "G.G.'s case is about much more than bathrooms. It's about a boy asking his school to treat him just like any other boy. It's about protecting the rights of transgender people in public spaces and not forcing them to exist on the margins. It's about governmental validation of the existence and experiences of transgender people, as well as the simple recognition of their humanity. His case is part of a larger movement that is redefining and broadening the scope of civil and human rights so that they extend to a vulnerable group that has traditionally been unrecognized, unrepresented, and unprotected." Id. at 3.
Oral arguments are scheduled for later this year.
In March of 2017, due to the recent guidance by the Trump Administration, the Supreme Court stated that they will not hear the case and remanded it to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Originally the 4th Circuit found that the District Court erred when it dismissed G.G.'s claim, stating that the case was entitled to Auer deference. Further, they stated that the denial of the preliminary injunction was based on a harsher evidentiary standard than necessary which resulted in an abuse of power by the District Court. The court vacated the denial and remanded the ruling on the preliminary injunction to the District Court under the proper standard.
The District Court found that Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but not on the basis of gender, gender identity or sexual orientation. Further, the Court found that G.G.'s sex was female and that therefore only allowing him access to female bathrooms was not discriminating against him on the basis of sex.