In what is being hailed as an important procedural victory for a school district that opposed pressure by the federal government to open school bathrooms to students based on gender identity rather than biology, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to rule on a high-profile case involving a transgender student in Virginia.

Fox News is reporting on today’s action by the Supreme Court not to proceed with oral arguments, which were scheduled for later this month, in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.

The case involves Gavin Grimm, a female student from Virginia who now identifies as being male, who wants to use men’s bathrooms and locker rooms. The student sued after the Obama Administration issued a guidance last year instructing schools to open private facilities to students based on perceived rather than biological gender.

The Gloucester County School Board opposed the guidance as well as the administration's main legal argument which claims that the prohibition of sex discrimination outlined in the Education Amendment known as Title IX should also refer to transgendered persons even though it does not explicitly state this.

When a federal court ruled in Grimm's favor, the Board appealed to the 4th Circuit who refused their request to stay the ruling.

The School Board appealed the case to the Supreme Court which accepted the case at first but has now decided that in light of new directives from the Trump administration which rescinded the Obama-era rules, the 4th Circuit should give the case “further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.”

Joshua Block, Grimm’s attorney with the ACLU, made his displeasure over the SCOTUS ruling known on Twitter today. “Obviously disappointed SCOTUS is remanding Gavin’s case to CA4, but it is a detour, not the end of the road. . . . Unfortunately, this means that far too many trans kids across the country will be held in limbo for another 1-2 years. . ."

On the other hand, attorney Ed Whelan, writing for National Review, explained: “What this means is that the Fourth Circuit’s badly confused ruling has been wiped out: It is no longer binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, nor should it be cited by any other court.”

He added: “Let’s hope that the Fourth Circuit panel does a better job on remand (or that G.G.’s imminent graduation moots the case).”

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com