Court issues preliminary ruling in transgender bathroom lawsuit

The Palmer Superior Court upheld the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District’s (MSBSD) policy, Board Policy 5134, which restricts student bathroom and changing room use to the gender that was assigned at birth.

The court upheld a requirement that the district’s computer policy uses a student’s name that corresponds to their gender identity.

Each ruling was made July 30.

In October 2022, the MSBSD approved BP 5134, which states that the use of restrooms and changing areas are to be restricted to the exclusive use of students’ biological sex as identified at the time of birth.

Following a four-day trial in April, and submission of closing arguments by attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant in July, the court concluded that even though the District’s policy distinguishes between students based on sex assigned at birth and results in differential treatment of transgender students, the policy does not violate the equal protection or privacy provisions of the Alaska Constitution.

“The court finds Policy 5134 does treat individuals who need to use the bathroom differently depending on whether their gender identity does or does not coincide with the sex written on their birth certificate,” according to the ruling documents.

When it comes to X.A.’s privacy, and the disclosure of his transgender status, the ruling states that the court does not find that BP 5134 “explicitly, implicitly, or in application requires disclosure of transgender status.”

Judge Tom V. Jamgochian, who is overseeing the case, also writing that transgender status is constitutionally protected information under the State Constitution, citing a 2012 decision in the case K.L. v. State of Alaska DMV.

“The court finds that X.A. does have a legitimate expectation that his transgender status will not be disclosed,” he wrote, later writing that the policy does not violate X.A.'s autonomy or privacy, nor restrict his outward gender presentation, nor does he need to disclose his gender identity to anyone or his reason for using the gender-neutral bathrooms available to him.

“The constitutional right to privacy generally protects two types of interests. One is an individual's interest in protecting "sensitive personal information" which, if disclosed, could cause embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, harassment, or economic and physical reprisals." The other is an individual's interest in personal autonomy and independence in decision making.”

However, the Court also criticized the school district’s information policy to the extent that it did not consistently use the child’s preferred name in all communications that don’t require use of a student’s legal name.

The Court agreed to extend its preliminary injunction requiring MSBSD to ensure that its computer systems consistently use the student’s current name that corresponds with his gender identity. The District will be under a continuing obligation to use the student’s preferred name.

In his concluding paragraph, Judge Jamgochian wrote:

“The policy serves an important governmental interest in safeguarding student privacy in intimate settings, and the means selected, sex-based access to restrooms and locker rooms, with gender-neutral alternatives, bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Although the policy results in differential treatment of transgender students, the record does not support a finding that it is motivated by animus or that it imposes an unconstitutional burden. The policy does not compel disclosure of gender identity, restrict gender expression, or deny access to restroom facilities.”

“No court order can fully satisfy all interests of all litigants, and any outcome may impose hardship on some individuals. Questions regarding policy are appropriately left to elected officials and the public. The court's duty is more limited: to interpret and apply Alaska's Constitution. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the challenged policy does not violate the Constitution of the State of Alaska.”

“Alaskans hold our individual privacy in incredibly high regard,” said Ruth Botstein, Legal Director for the ACLU of Alaska, who filed the case in January, 2024 in Palmer Superior Court, representing the parents on behalf of their transgender son, who was denied access to the boys’ bathrooms, even though he identifies as a boy. The parents, who wish to remain anonymous to protect their son, say their son faces mental and physical challenges because of this.

“The Court’s decision to extend the preliminary injunction’s informational privacy protections is an important win for transgender students’ privacy. It is also a silver lining in an otherwise dark ruling for transgender students in the Mat-Su Borough School District. As it has for our client, this bathroom policy will only continue to out transgender students and cause harm. All students want is to be treated equally at school.”

“The Matanuska Susitna Borough Board of Education acknowledges and appreciates the trial court’s decision on July 30 in X.A. v. MSBSD,” said John Notestine, Public Information Officer for the MSBSD.

“In particular, the Board appreciates the Trial Court’s recognition that its bathroom policy protects the strong and legitimate privacy interests of all students in the District and that the District’s actions were characterized by accommodations, individualized attention and an inclusive environment.”

The court has not yet issued a final judgment in the case. The ACLU of Alaska is currently supporting the student and their family in considering further appeal options, while it awaits issuance of a final judgement. The ACLU will have 30 days to file an appeal.