USCA11 Case: 18-13592 Document: 304-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 Page: 10 of 150
v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 3 F.4th 1299, 1303–04 (11th Cir. 2021); id. at 1321 (Pryor, C.J., dissenting). We then granted the School Board’s petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel’s revised opinion. Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., 9 F.4th 1369, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021).
Pursuant to our en banc briefing notice to the parties, on appeal the only questions before this Court are:
1) Does the School District’s policy of assigning bathrooms based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? and
2) Does the School District’s policy of assigning bathrooms based on sex violate Title IX?
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“After a bench trial, we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.” Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, 576 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2009). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Morrissette–Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005)).
III. ANALYSIS
On appeal, Adams argues that the School Board’s bathroom policy violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. At
