Supreme Court rejects South Carolina's bid to enforce transgender bathroom ban

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to take up an application from South Carolina seeking to enforce its ban on students using public school bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The brief order was unsigned and represents a small setback for the state in its bid to tighten policies related to transgender people. However, a lawsuit on the matter will still proceed in the lower courts. Three Republican-appointed justices, Thomas Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, would have granted South Carolina's request.

The order from the high court comes after a federal appeals court had temporarily enjoined the state from enforcing its law while the case plays out. The state wanted the Supreme Court to lift that injunction temporarily.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had granted the injunction at the request of a ninth-grader who wanted to use the boys' bathroom, which didn't correspond to the student's sex.

Attorneys for the student, identified as John Doe in the lawsuit, argued to the high court that an emergency pause on the Fourth Circuit's order was not warranted given the lawsuit centered on only one student. No other students have taken issue with John Doe using the boys' restroom, the attorneys noted.

"Indeed, no student has ever complained about sharing boys’ restrooms with John, who has dressed and presented as a boy since he was a young child," the attorneys wrote.

SCOTUS RULES ON STATE BAN ON GENDER TRANSITION 'TREATMENTS' FOR MINORS IN LANDMARK CASE

The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the merits of the case, giving little insight into how the court will continue to approach a contentious cultural issue. Its order comes after the high court upheld a ban in Tennessee in June on certain transgender medical treatments for minors and as the justices prepare to hear arguments this upcoming term on transgender participation in school sports.

South Carolina lawyers referenced the latter appeal, which is poised to be a closely watched case this term, in asking the justices to allow its ban to take effect.

"This case implicates a question fraught with emotions and differing perspectives," the state lawyers wrote. "That is all the more reason to defer to state lawmakers pending appeal. The decision was the South Carolina legislature’s to make."