The Supreme Court had been scheduled to hear its first-ever transgender rights case on October 28^th of this year, a case that revolves around the relevance of Title IX’s protections to transgender students. Gavin Grimm, the high school senior that filed the case, was prevented from using the men’s bathroom at his school because he was transgender. Grimm noted that although his school hadn’t allowed him to use his bathroom of choice even after Obama’s issued guidance letter, the simple existence of the letter was “incredibly empowering” and “bolstered hope.”

But not only did the Supreme Court announce that it would no longer be hearing Grimm’s case on March 6, 2017; on February 22, the Trump administration rescinded the letter of federal guidelines on transgender students’ rights. These protections had included the facilitation of any changes that were to be made in school records involving gender, the requirement for teachers to address transgender students by their chosen pronoun/name, and more prominently, the authorization for transgender students to use the bathroom that aligned with their gender identity. Betsy DeVos, the Secretary of Education, opposed the rescinding, despite its support from Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump. The only addition to the otherwise nullified set of guidelines was that “all schools must ensure that students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment.” While this provision serves to prevent bullying against transgender students, it does not address other implications of their gender identity on school grounds.

Social conservatives praised Trump for the new changes in guidance. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, asserted that transgender student policy “is not something that the federal government should be involved in, this is a states’ rights issue.” The Justice Department and the Education department sustained the argument of federalism, saying that Obama’s letter of guidelines was created “without due regard for the primary role of the states and local school districts in establishing educational policy.” However, Vanita Gupta, who was the head of the Justice Department during Obama’s presidency and the publisher of the original letter of guidance, argued: “To cloak [the transgender students’ rights issue] in federalism ignores the vital and historic role that federal law plays in ensuring that all children (including LGBT students) are able to attend school free from discrimination.” The president of the Human Rights Campaign has similar sentiments, saying that “This isn’t a states’ rights issue; it’s a civil rights issue.”

Sophomore Amelia Komisar-Bury felt “kind of betrayed,” reiterating that during Trump’s campaign, “he did say that he wouldn’t have anything against the trans community.” Although she is a cis individual, she has a passionate stance on the issue of transgender rights. “The idea of trans women being dangerous is saying that they don’t deserve the protection that cis women or other people get,” Komisar-Bury said, referring to the common argument employed against transgender people (especially transgender women) using the bathroom of their gender identity: that it facilitates sexual abuse.

History teacher Mrs. Stern is disappointed as well. “While we live in a state that will likely keep the bathroom protections in place, it is upsetting to know that countless other students and adults will not have that same right.” When asked if there were any historical parallels to draw with the rescinding, Mrs. Stern noted that many people think of Jim Crow segregation laws in correspondence to the Trump administration’s new guidance.“I tend to agree,” said Mrs. Stern. “Transgender people face a number of hurdles toward feeling accepted and welcomed into the general population, and this only makes it worse.”