Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief, exploring legal issues in the news, and the long Brief is brought to you by American Arbitration Association, International Trade or Business Dispute Resolve Faster with the International Center for a Dispute Resolution, the leader in alternative dispute resolution around
the world i c DR dot org. Today, Bloomberg Law host June Grosso and Michael Best speak with Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter and Bloomberg Law co host Greg Store about the High Court's decision to send a case about transgender bathroom rights back to a lower court. Greg, You've been waiting for this for some time. Explain why the justices kicked what would have been their first encounter with
transgender rights back to the lower court. June. It's essentially because the case that they thought they were going to hear was no longer there once the Trump administration changed that policy. It undercut the rationale of the lower court that had decided the case. The lower court had said, because the Obama administration had said transgender students have the right to the access of the bathroom that matches their gender identity, the lower courts said we're going to defer
to that policy. Well, that policy is no longer there, and so basically the Supreme Court said, we're going to kick it back down to the lower court to decide what federal discrimination law requires without thinking about that that
old Obama policy. So how does the court go about doing this when it gets back to the lower court, Greg, The key question is going to be there's a law called Title nine which says no gender discrimination in schools, uh, And the key question there will be how that applies in the case of a transgender student and who is seeking access to in this case just bathrooms, but it could also be uh locker rooms and and says I want to uh use the bathroom that is consistent with
my gender identity. So they'll be directly deciding what federal antidiscrimination law requires, without regard to what the administration thinks it should require. Greg, why did both sides actually suggest that the court hang onto the case really for tactical reasons? Um? You know, from the standpoint of the boy who was challenging the policy, Gavin Graham, he's represented by the c l U, they looked at the court and they, you know, they see Anthony Kennedy is probably the swing vote on
this issue. There's no guarantee how long he's going to stay on the court. And they look at the court and they think, you know, it's as good of a Supreme Court as we're gonna get on this issue right now. We'd rather have them decide the issue now. From the standpoint of the school district. What they were actually trying
to do, uh was asked. They suggested that the court seek Trump administration views, which would have delayed the case a little bit, but just long enough so that Neil Gorstch might have joined the court and they were hoping they would have gotten a five justice majority. But the Supreme Court said, no, actually, we need to let the lower court decide this issue first. That's Bloomberg News Supreme Court reporter on Bloomberg Law co host Greg Store speaking
with Juan Grosso and Michael Best. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio. And that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg Bena dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b and a dot com for more information.