The U.S. Sixth District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case challenging the decision by Bethel Local School District in Tipp City to allow students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.
In 2022, a lawsuit filed in federal court by a group of parents claimed the school district's policy violated the civil rights of religious families and denied them the right to direct the education, safety, and upbringing of their children. The lawsuit was later dismissed by the court in 2023, but the group of parents soon appealed the decision.
In front of Judge Karen Nelson Moore, those defending Bethel's inclusive policy and those seeking to reverse the previous court's ruling presented their arguments.
Speaking on behalf of the group of parents, former Ohio Solicitor General Ben Flowers said the school district's accommodation for a transgender student was unfair and didn't take into consideration the harm done to students with religious convictions who refused to share a communal bathroom with a transgender person.
"The challenged policy accommodates religious objectors by offering them the same accommodation with the same hardships that was previously deemed intolerable as applied to transgender students," Flowers said. "[Religious students] have access to the single-user restrooms. With the limited number of those, the large size of the religious communities means students end up holding their urine, refusing to use the bathroom."
RELATED: Lakota School Board strikes down anti-trans motion amid Darbi Boddy’s long-running absence
Taylor Knight, speaking on behalf of Bethel Schools, argued the policy wasn't infringing the rights of the religious students. Knight told the judge Bethel's policy only allowed transgender students like "Anne Roe" to use the school's communal restroom in the same way the rest of the students could. It didn't restrict anyone.
"The injury is different," she said. "They only have a problem if Anne Roe is in the bathroom the same time as they are."
The two parties will now await a decision from the Court of Appeals.
