The Supreme Court requested to interfere in the case of a transgender students

The legal battle on public school bathrooms and transgender students has become in the hands of the Supreme Court, where the South Carolina Alain Wilson Prosecutor believes that it will be “death” of what he calls the “extremist left agenda”.

South Carolina asked the Supreme Court to stop the Federal Appeal Court order that gives a transgender high school student to the children’s bathrooms, a step that the state says that clashes with its law require facilities based on biological sex and come only months after the court’s disability in a Tennessee ban on sexual remedies for minors.

In the emergency file last week, Wilson said, along with state officials, that the ruling left the Berkeley County School area “stuck between an impossible rock and a difficult place.”

“I think this case is in the fourth circle, which can be decided by the US Supreme Court in the end, it will be a death in the agenda of the extremist left,” Wilson told Fox News Digital in an interview on Tuesday. “This issue is not only related to the state’s ability to protect the privacy and safety of students, but rather relates to the rights of students themselves in their schools.”

The bathrooms of all both sexes at the Denver School violates the ninth address, and the discovery of the education department

The case restores the biological pigeon rules for students before the country’s highest court, a few months after the Supreme Court supported the state’s prohibition on transitional treatments between the sexes of minors-a decision South Carolina that the lower courts should.

Wilson said: “It emphasizes the importance of countries’ ability to protect their students and their own electoral districts within their states,” Wilson said. “This is one of the issues that arose in Skrmetti’s decision.”

The fourth department ruled last month that the student, who was identified in the court documents “John de”, is allowed to use the boys toilet pending the case. The decision depends greatly on Grimm V. Gloucester County School Board, where the court saw that a transgender boy had banned the use of children’s toilet violating the equal protection requirement And the ninth title.

But South Carolina officials argue that a crime is “credible external” and that federal courts must follow the United States’ decision against Skrmetti, because “the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in the end,” according to the emergency. In Skrmetti’s decision, judges rule in favor of Tennessee’s ban on the procedures for the gender transition of minors.

Scotus rules on the state’s ban on gender transition “treatments” for minors in the case of history

As each of this court and the fourth district recognized, the main reason for this agreement that biology roots is to enhance privacy, “says the emergency file. “But recent social developments have sought to change this. Over the past fifteen years, the number of children and adolescents with gender speech defect has increased.”

The South Carolina Law, which was yearned in July 2024, states that the educational areas risk confiscating 25 % of the state’s Ministry of Education’s financing if they allow sexually transgender students using the facilities that are different from their biological gender.

The Ministry of Energy and his parents filed a lawsuit against the state in November 2024.

In January, Trump administration The Ministry of Education has directed K-12 schools and colleges to recognize the ninth title to protect the ninth title on the basis of biological sex-reflected by rewriting the BIDEN 2024. under Former President Joe Biden 2024 base, the term “sex” was expanded to cover sexual identity and sexual orientation.

CDC official includes “pregnant” terms and terms in the resignation letter

Click here to get the Fox News app

“South Carolina wants the Supreme Court to take the exceptional treatment of appeal in the ongoing lower court – all of this because the state wants to prevent the ninth grade student from using boys’ courses during their appeal.”

“This issue does not provide the type of emergency that justifies such an intervention,” the statement continued. As the chief judge in the fourth district recently noted, “There is no evidence that the use of (our customer) in the toilets of the children represents the possibility of a distance to harm anyone. But the evidence of the state’s hostility towards it. “In fact, none of our clients complained of our boys’ courses.

supreme court A response to emergency situations can be issued early on Friday. The court’s decision may come without a complete briefing or an oral argument, as is the typical of the rulings issued outside the full process of the Supreme Court.