USCA11 Case: 18-13592 Document: 304-1 Date Filed: 12/30/2022 Page: 150 of 150
bathroom. Doc. 160-1 at 117, 204. A member of our sister circuit powerfully described the connection between the harm Adams experienced and the harm other children suffered in the not-so-distant past:
No less than the recent historical practice of segregating Black and white restrooms … the unequal treatment enabled by the [School District’s] policy produces a vicious and ineradicable stigma. The result is to deeply and indelibly scar the most vulnerable among us—children who simply wish to be treated as equals at one of the most fraught developmental moments in their lives—by labeling them as unfit for equal protection in our society.
Grimm, 972 F.3d at 683. By excluding Adams from the boys’ restrooms at Nease High School and relegating him to the gender-neutral restrooms, the School District forced Adams to wear what courts have called a “badge of inferiority.” See Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 976 F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 2020) (Wynn, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc). The Constitution and laws of the United States promise that no person will have to wear such a badge because of an immutable characteristic. The majority opinion breaks that promise. Respectfully, I dissent.
