An amicus brief prepared by lawyers at the Human Rights campaign is expected to be filed with SCOTUS in the case of Grimm v Gloucester County School Board by March 2. Before it is filed, it is expected to be joined by Apple, Yelp, lending startup Affirm, Microsoft, PayPal, IBM, Salesforce, Box, Ebay, GitHUb, Slack, Tumblr, and Airbnb. More Silicon Valley companies (such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter) are expected to sign on in the coming days.

Box deeply supports upholding and protecting the rights of all people regardless of their gender identity. We strongly oppose the administration's decision to limit protections of transgender students, and we will continue to advocate for policies that provide equal treatment for everyone.

--Aaron Levie, Box

Amicus briefs filed by the National Organization for Marriage, the Liberty Counsel and the the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence misgender Gavin Grimm.

These groups may passionately believe that Grimm is a girl—but unfortunately for them, they aren’t entitled to change his gender in the caption of their amicus briefs. The court has very specific rules governing these briefs, and Rule 34 of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires that each brief “shall bear on its cover ... the caption of the case as appropriate in this Court.”

A SCOTUS clerk, Scott S. Harris, had sent out letters reprimanding the groups that misgendered Grimm and demanding that they comply with the rules moving forward.

Obviously, this single rebuke will not persuade these organizations to respect Grimm’s gender identity. But it does, I think, effectively disqualify these amicus briefs from serious consideration. By misgendering Grimm, these briefs clearly reflect the kind of animus that moved the school board to bar Grimm from the correct bathroom in the first place. The briefs reject the very validity of Grimm’s identity in a manner that is both offensive and petty. Indeed, these organizations are so eager to deny Grimm this basic dignity that they intentionally flouted the rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is difficult to imagine a justice citing anything these groups’ briefs say—even those who vote against Grimm. Liberty Counsel, NOM, and the CCJ have given the game away, revealing that while they claim to care about bathroom predators, they are really attempting to repudiate trans people’s identity.

And to think—they might’ve convinced a few justices to cite their bigoted illogic if they had only put aside their animus for a moment and followed the rules of the court.

--Mark Jospeph Stern, Slate