Wall o' Text on Idaho case (click to show/hide)
I was writing about the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, not the motion for a TRO (sought because the government wasn’t going to file a response before school started Aug 16). As I wrote above, I skipped straight to the merits.
Plaintiffs seem to have all their ducks in a line already. They retained expert witnesses from Wisconsin and Kentucky and the pleadings reflect that preparation.
Mom’s affidavit in support of the motion for preliminary injunction contains the following, “Living in a manner consistent with her gender identity, including having access to the girls’ restroom, is an important aspect of the treatment for Rebecca’s gender dysphoria.” But she also affirms, “I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and and would testify competently to those facts if called as a witness.” Is Mom competent to testify on the importance of bathroom access to her daughter’s mental health treatment?
They have a doctor, but not one that examined Ms. Roe. Dr. Budge is an expert witness for the general case, not the specific facts.
Yes, there is another plaintiff and the injunction sought is wide-reaching. But there seem to be only two named individuals in the case, Rebecca Roe and A.J. The latter is a student at Boise High and president of co-plaintiff SAGA (a student association). He does not allege meeting with a therapist. He does allege working out a gender support plan with his school counselor (including access to boys’ bathrooms) which is great for establishing status quo for TRO/prelim purposes, but doesn’t establish much in the way of injury.
The TRO was granted. Neither of the named individuals have actually been prevented by S.B. 1100 from using the bathroom of their choice. Furthermore both are minors. So I’m thinking neither will be competent to testify on actual/future harm S.B. 1100 may cause. Neither seem to have a mental health professional lined up who has examined them and is competent to testify that the law, if allowed to take effect, will injure them specifically.
I think - of relevance if this case makes it past the 9th Circuit - Idaho will bring in adverse witnesses and try to establish that sometimes, people regret transitioning or that there are cases where transitioning isn’t appropriate. They’ll criticize the ‘consensus’ and probably win an admission that transitioning isn’t always appropriate. Then they’ll attack the plaintiffs for failing to prove that transitioning is necessary in their individual cases. Or at least that the state would have offered reasonable accommodation that would prevent injury in the individual cases.
In the 4th Circuit case there was clear cause and effect from the bathroom policy to the kid’s health. The kid had to testify about UTIs and suicide attempts. Plaintiffs in this case don’t have that kind of history, which is good, but it also means it might be harder to prove injury.
My personal opinion thus far has been that the strongest argument in plaintiff’s favor is that the law is purposefully discriminatory and disparately impacts similarly situated students’ mental health. That’s an equal protection claim. As the devil’s advocate… why not get a doctor’s note to establish that Rebecca and/or A.J. are similarly situated to the class of individuals whose mental health would be negatively affected?
~Max
