A federal judge appointed by President Obama has ruled that a teenage Illinois girl has no legal right to a school bathroom free of biological males.
Quick Take
- Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman dismissed a Title IX lawsuit against Valley View Community Unit School District 365U.
- The student, known only as F.F., and her father sued after the district let transgender students use facilities matching their gender identity.
- Coleman was nominated to the federal bench by President Obama in 2010.
- The ruling adds to a years-long split among federal courts over what “sex” means under Title IX.
- The family has already taken the case to a federal appeals court.
Lawsuit Over Locker Room Access
In August 2025, a student identified only as F.F. and her father, James Ellard Fisher, sued Valley View Community Unit School District 365U in Illinois. The lawsuit claimed the district broke Title IX by letting transgender students use bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity, not their sex at birth. The family asked the court to block the policy while the case moved forward.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman denied that request on September 30, 2025. Months later, she dismissed the whole lawsuit, ruling that girls have no civil right under federal law to bathrooms that exclude biological males. The school district had argued its policy followed federal guidance treating gender identity as protected under Title IX.
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
A federal judge just told a teenage girl and her father that under Title IX, she has no right to a bathroom or locker room free of biological boys.โฆ pic.twitter.com/fRMQ80P9Dj
— M.A. Rothman (@MichaelARothman) July 19, 2026
Advocacy Group Added Pressure
Awake Illinois, an advocacy group, filed a related federal civil rights complaint in April 2025. It accused the Illinois State Board of Education and Valley View School District of violating Title IX by recommending and enacting policies that let males into female-only spaces. That complaint kept public attention on the case as it moved through court.
Coleman was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by President Obama in 2010. Critics point to an earlier ruling where she found that people in the country illegally have rights under the Second Amendment. That history has led some conservative commentators to argue her Title IX decision reflects politics, not neutral legal reasoning.
Federal Courts Remain Divided Nationwide
Title IX’s own regulation, known as 34 C.F.R. ยง 106.33, lets schools run separate bathrooms and locker rooms “on the basis of sex,” as long as the facilities are equal in quality. But the regulation never says whether “sex” means biology alone or includes gender identity. That gap has left the 1972 law open to competing readings for more than a decade.
The Fourth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have both ruled that blocking bathroom access based on gender identity can violate Title IX. The full Eleventh Circuit, sitting as one bench, rejected that same argument in a separate case. No single national rule exists, so the outcome for students often depends on where they live.
The Ninth Circuit added another twist in Parents for Privacy v. Barr, ruling that Title IX allows sex-segregated facilities but does not force schools to sort them strictly by biological sex. That patchwork of rulings leaves families like F.F.’s unsure of their rights, even after a judge rules in their specific case. F.F.’s family has now taken the fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Sources:
nixonpeabody.com, en.wikipedia.org, nwlc.org, legalnewsline.com, law.justia.com, media.ca7.uscourts.gov, awakeil.com
