ILNews

Judge allows transgender suit to proceed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A transgender former high school student who was barred from his senior prom in Gary because he was wearing a pink dress for the occasion will have his day in court.

U.S. District Judge Joe Van Bokkelen issued a 10-page order late Thursday that denied the school corporation's motion to dismiss the case of Kevin Logan v. Gary Community School Corp., et al., No. 2:07-CV-431.

The case involves a prom dress-code incident in May 2006, where a school principal blocked Logan - who goes by "K.K." - from entering the school event because of what he was wearing, even though a female student wearing a tuxedo was allowed to enter.

While in school, Logan was known to wear clothes typically associated with girls his age. But the principal cited a school policy for the entry denial, and Logan eventually filed suit in the Northern District.

The northern Indiana school district filed a motion to dismiss in February, arguing the court didn't have jurisdiction to hear Logan's case on the grounds that federal law doesn't dictate local school dress codes, especially when constitutional rights haven't been violated.

But in his ruling, Judge Van Bokkelen is clear the federal court has jurisdiction in rejecting each of the school's arguments: that the separation of powers doctrine doesn't preclude his court from hearing the case; that the issue isn't moot despite Logan's status as a former student because it's a facial challenge to a rule under the First Amendment; and that the school officials aren't immune under the 11th Amendment because they aren't arms of the state.

Judge Van Bokkelen found that the First Amendment issues and the Title IX claims on why Logan was excluded from the prom - because of sexual orientation or dress code - need further development and it would be premature to dismiss the case now. He explicitly rejected the school's argument that "it is high time the Federal Court" stopped interfering with school administration, citing caselaw that shows federal courts do have the authority to review school decisions even though they often defer to local school leaders in establishing policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT