Copyright Baltimore Sun
Once again, Maryland schools are facing federal scrutiny for their handling of ideologically driven gender policies attempting to combine boys’ and girls’ sex-segregated private spaces. This time, however, rather than forcing schoolchildren to do the legal heavy-lifting, someone has taken steps to protect students. This Good Samaritan is the federal Department of Education, which has demanded an end to the schools’ so-called transgender policies, arguing that they violate federal requirements for preventing sex discrimination. Let it sink in that the feds are having to tell Maryland schools that boys’ bathrooms and girls’ bathrooms are called that for a reason. This shocking reality has apparently failed to break through to State Superintendent Carey Wright. Her cavalier reaction to this federal intervention and to the widespread concerns about girls’ safety and privacy was to point to a single 2020 case — Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board — in which a divided federal appeals court sided with a Virginia student seeking access to opposite-sex bathrooms. When asked if she was concerned or considering changes, Wright replied bluntly: “No.” “We are following the decision that was made at the Fourth Circuit, and we’ve given a lot of guidance out to schools as to how to follow that.” In invoking Grimm, Wright hopes to use this flawed court ruling to deflect responsibility for the heinous situation she has helped to create in Maryland’s schools. That’s why she clings to the deeply flawed Grimm decision as if it were settled law, using it to justify removing the single-sex spaces that keep children safe. But bad case law is no excuse for dismantling safe boundaries in bathrooms and locker rooms. And no court — certainly not a rogue panel with a limited ruling concerning one student — has the authority to rewrite biological reality. The notion of “gender identity” in Grimm was a legal invention by activists to shield the obvious legal pitfalls in transgender ideology. Still, it cannot efface the biological and moral reality of male and female, nor does it nullify schools’ responsibility to provide private, secure spaces for girls. Wright’s refusal to even consider the implications reveals a careless disregard for the well-being of students. Even if one were to view Wright’s account in the most charitable light, it is nevertheless distorted. The case law just isn’t on her side. And this is despite the efforts of activists in the court system. Invalidating her arguments is the Skrmetti decision, which gives a far better insight into the real state of the law. In this case, decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law protecting minors from harmful gender-transition procedures. By its 6-3 decision to reject the Biden administration’s attempt to block the law under the Equal Protection Clause, the court essentially reaffirmed that states have the authority to protect children and set reasonable boundaries reflecting the immutability of biological sex. This effectively undercuts the shaky legal foundation of Grimm and clearly signals that courts should move away from activist rulings that rewrite biology and undermine constitutional principles, and for Wright and other officials to return to genuinely protecting children. Moreover, the ruling in Skrmetti is just the start. With the Supreme Court set to hear the major cases of Little v. Hecox out of Idaho and West Virginia v. B.P.J. in the upcoming term, there’s far more on the horizon. Both cases strike at the heart of whether states can defend women’s sports and maintain sex-based distinctions in the face of aggressive legal challenges. In Little v. Hecox, the court will decide whether Idaho can keep girls’ sports reserved for biological females. This is a point of common sense forcibly obscured by the transgender movement’s relentless campaign of social and legal intimidation. Similarly, in West Virginia v. B.P.J., the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act” is being challenged under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Activists want the court to erase long-standing protections for female athletes and force states to allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports, even giving them access to locker rooms. So, with respect, Superintendent Wright can’t just shrug this off. These are not fringe considerations to be dismissed. These are defining legal battles over the meaning of sex, the role of states and, ultimately, whether the court will uphold objective biological reality in law and fortify the common sense ability to protect children and women’s spaces. Or will it hand more power to activists who want to rewrite the law through the courts and drag Maryland school children along with it? Jonathan M. Alexandre serves as legislative counsel for the Maryland Family Institute.
