Supreme Court could end the radical transgender agenda in our schools

Early in March, the United States Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta dramatically  between the ideologically driven bureaucrats running America’s public schools and the parents and students they are to serve. The court was unmistakably clear — as it was last year in Mahmoud v. Taylor — parents possess the fundamental right to raise and educate their children. Period.  Schools should not facilitate a student’s “gender transition” without parental notification and consent. 

Just days after Mirabelli, the left-leaning Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in Anderson v. Crouch that West Virginia’s decision to exclude sex-change surgeries from Medicaid coverage did not violate the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, the Fourth Circuit found West Virginia’s Medicaid program did not discriminate on the basis of sex but was a medical-based policy applied equally to both sexes seeking certain treatments for gender dysphoria.

The court further held that Medicaid did not discriminate on the basis of a person’s claimed transgender status: a person — even one claiming to be transgender — could still receive to treat uterine cancer, but not for the same procedure to treat gender dysphoria. 

The ruling in Anderson is monumental. Unlike Skrmetti, which addressed only bans on medical treatments for gender dysphoria in children, Anderson applies to adults, as well. This decision is also a harbinger of the inevitable collapse of the destructive, ideological regime in public education that forces women to share bathrooms, locker rooms and athletic competitions with men.

After all, policies mandating that be separated on the basis of biological sex apply equally to both sexes — precisely the logic the Fourth Circuit endorsed in upholding West Virginia’s Medicaid exclusion. 

These policies do not single out individuals who claim to be transgender. No student, regardless of motivation, should use a locker room, bathroom, or play on a sports team designated for the opposite sex. A boy who seeks access to the girls’ bathroom because he fears bullying is subject to the same rule as a boy who wants to use the girls room because he believes he is a girl. 

To be sure, common-sense policies dictate separate bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams for males and females, just as West Virginia’s Medicaid restriction in Anderson is based on sound medical policy that states have a legitimate evidence-based interest in controlling Medicaid costs and ensuring medical necessity that is not driven by sex discrimination.

Also telling is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision less than one year ago in Roe v. Critchfield. That appellate court, hardly a bastion of judicial conservatism, — held that requiring students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their biological sex violated neither the Equal Protection Clause nor Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. 

These important decisions have not been issued in a vacuum. Before the end of June, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in West Virginia v. BPJ, which squarely presents the question of whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX by the basis of sex.

The smart money says the court will answer in the negative and may well signal, directly or indirectly, that restrooms and locker rooms can likewise be separated on that basis. Such a ruling would be more than welcome, as it would empower states to pass legislation protecting women’s sports and private spaces without the perpetual threat of litigation from the ACLU and allied advocacy organizations.

Nevertheless, a favorable Supreme Court decision, while a major blow to the transgender agenda in public schools, may not end the war for common sense. Instead, solidly blue states will likely continue to impose policies that eviscerate student privac