On Monday Judge Mark R Hornak of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled that three transgender students had a "reasonable likelihood" of success in their argument that the Pine-Richland School District's decision last fall to require them to use bathrooms consistence with the sex on their birth certificates was unconstitutional, and hence granted them a preliminary injunction against that policy.

The ruling is a reminder to school districts across Pennsylvania and across America that they have a legal duty to respect the gender identity of all their students.

--Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal

School officials had for some time embraced each student by their gender identity. But early last year, apparently encouraged by a parent, the district superintendent addressed the issue with the whole school community for the first time, according to the ruling.

After months of discussions, the school board voted in September to reverse the informal policy on bathroom use, limiting the three students to single-user bathrooms or those that do not match their gender identities.

The past months have been incredibly stressful, and this was all so unnecessary. There was no problem before, and we are confident there will be no problem now.

--Elissa Ridenour, one of the students

Judge Hornak’s decision is well reasoned and welcomed by many in our community. It dispels the myths and unfounded fears that are often put forth to justify discrimination. It restores the constitutional rights of students that were in place in our district for many years without incident.

--Peter Lyons, school board member who says he voted against the policy

Meanwhile, at SCOTUS:

Both sides in a transgender bathroom case before the Supreme Court urged the justices to go ahead with it on Wednesday, despite the Trump administration's cancellation of former President Barack Obama's guidance on the issue.

There are too many news stories claiming that Grimm v Gloucester County School District is all about the Obama administration guidance...thus missing the big poicture.

The court should answer the fundamental question in the case: Does Title IX's ban on sex discrimination also forbid discrimination on the basis of gender identity?

Delaying resolution of that question will only lead to further harm, confusion and protracted litigation for transgender students and school districts across the country.

--Joshua Block, ACLU

Kyle Duncan, the lawyer for the school board, said there was no need to send the case back for "needless additional litigation in the lower courts."

Duncan did suggest, however, that the court could delay arguments to give both sides more time to submit additional briefs and to hear from the Justice Department. That would also make it more likely that Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nominee to fill an empty seat on the court, would be approved by then, and the school board may be assuming he'd be in their camp.

Most importantly, from a human perspective, a decision that Title IX protects transgender students would safeguard hundreds of thousands of transgender youth—youth like Grimm. According to recent estimates by the Williams Institute, 0.7 percent of youth (ages 13 to 17), or about 150,00 kids in that age group, would identify as transgender. (This is in addition to children below the age of 13, and the estimated 206,000 people aged 18 to 24 who, if they’re in college, are also protected by Title IX). Every day that schools are permitted to deny transgender students’ lived reality and bar them from fully participating in public life by, for example, excluding them from restrooms that correspond to their gender identity inflicts palpable harm on these children.

The harm of such exclusion is excruciatingly real, and well documented. Over three-quarters of students who were out or perceived as transgender during their K-12 years experienced mistreatment, including verbal harassment, physical assault, and sexual assault, as documented in the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. And transgender students who do not finish high school are disproportionately likely to attempt suicide, even as compared to the already high rate of attempted suicide among transgender people. Tragically, more than a third of transgender people who have attempted suicide reported that their first attempt was at the age of 13 or younger. To be clear, there is no suggestion that being transgender makes someone inherently more prone to mental illness—rather, socially structured, negative life events in reaction to someone’s transgender status can negatively impact that person’s mental health outcomes. All of which is to say, providing a supportive (or at the very least non-hostile) environment to transgender youth is critical to their survival.

When a school excludes a transgender student from the bathroom corresponding to the student’s gender identity, the school directly harms the student, but also sends a message to other students that it is okay to treat trans people differently, potentially leading to downstream harassment from other students. Delaying a decision on the ultimate question of whether Title IX includes protections for transgender students would continue to subject the hundreds of thousands of transgender students to stigmatization, harassment, and violence.

But the harm of that message is not limited to transgender students. It cements in the mind of any child who is different (that is, every child!), that difference is to be feared and shunned, rather than celebrated. It creates and perpetuates an environment of intolerance harming all children. Everyday over 50 million students attend public schools—what could be more pressing than helping ensure that educational environments are tolerant and welcoming, necessary conditions for learning and growth?

--Scott Skinner-Thompson, Slate

Finally, Los Angeles has joined an amicus brief along with 30 other cities, counties, and mayors from across the country that argues that Title IX protects transgender students from discrimination.

For decades” more than 200 cities, counties, and other municipalities “have been adopting and enforcing local laws prohibiting discrimination against transgender people."

--the brief

All our children deserve fair and equal treatment. All our children are entitled to respect, and to be free from discrimination. That includes our transgender children.

--Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer

No child should be subjected to bullying, intimidation, or humiliation. Discrimination against the transgender community is wrong, it can be especially destructive in the lives of young people, and has no place in our schools.

--Mayor Eric Garcetti

In addition to the city of L.A., more than 1,800 faith leaders and several major American corporations – including Apple, Microsoft, Paypal, eBay and others – were involved with the brief, which is a legal document filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter.

This is not a case about bathrooms — it is a case about fundamental civil rights. Separate but equal is not equal. We know that from our history, and we know that from our hearts. Stigmatizing an already vulnerable group is not an American value. Equality, compassion, and being true to yourself — those are qualities we all embrace. For decades, San Francisco has recognized the importance of adopting laws and policies that protect transgender individuals from discrimination so that they may live with the dignity and respect that everyone is entitled to. The policy passed by Gloucester County is based on unfounded fears and discriminates against transgender students. It denies them the equal access to education that Title IX guarantees. Passing laws in our cities that guarantee the protection of transgender people has only enhanced public safety and led to communities that are more inclusive. Wrapping discrimination in a cloak of unfounded fear doesn’t protect anyone. It weakens us all.

--San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera