Whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibit schools from maintaining separate bathrooms on the basis of students' biological sex

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a question that is the subject of “[lJitigation ... occurring all over the country” and an open and acknowledged “circuit split,” App.2, 17— namely, whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibits schools from maintaining separate bathrooms on the basis of students’ biological sex. Like many school districts throughout the country, Indiana’s Metropolitan School District of Martinsville separates multi-user bathrooms at its middle school based on students’ biological sex. As is also common, the District has a single-user bathroom available to students who prefer not to use the bathrooms provided for their biological sex. A.C. is a middle-school student who was born with female anatomy but identifies as a boy. When Martinsville rejected A.C.’s request to use the boys’ restrooms, A.C. brought this lawsuit, arguing that the District’s policy violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted an injunction pursuant to existing Seventh Circuit precedent, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. In declining Martinsville’s invitation to reconsider circuit precedent, both the majority and the concurrence emphasized that “[a] conflict among the circuits will exist no matter what happens in the current suits,” and that it falls to this Court to “produce a nationally uniform approach. App.27, 17. The question presented is: Whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause dictate a single national policy that prohibits local schools from maintaining separate bathrooms based on students’ biological sex.