A federal court has blocked the University of North Carolina system from enforcing certain provisions of House Bill 2.

The court ruled that HB2 violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It issued a preliminary injunction that stops enforcement of the HB2 provision regarding bathrooms and changing facilities in the UNC system.

“The individual transgender Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on their Title IX claim is GRANTED. The University of North Carolina, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participation with them are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing Part I of HB2 against the individual transgender Plaintiffs until further order of the court.”

Read the full ruling.

While the decision regarding Title IX was a victory for opponents of HB2, the court was skeptical about the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Equal Protection Clause and denied the motion for an injunction on those grounds without prejudice:

“In sum, Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent support the conclusion that physiological differences between men and women give rise to the privacy interests that justify segregating bathrooms, showers, and other similar facilities on the basis of sex. In addition, Plaintiffs admit that the vast majority of birth certificates accurately reflect an individual’s external genitalia. Although the correlation between genitalia and the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate is not perfect in every case, there is certainly a reasonable fit between these characteristics, which is what the law requires. Of course, not all transgender individuals are negatively impacted by Part I because some may be able to change the sex on their birth certificates, with or without sex reassignment surgery, and others may choose to use bathrooms or other facilities that accord with their biological sex, whether or not they suffer dysphoria as a result. At this preliminary stage, and in light of existing case law, Plaintiffs have not made a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on their Equal Protection claim.”

The court is reserving their ruling on the plaintiffs’ due process claims. The decision notes what interests the court:

“The court is particularly interested in the following questions: (1) whether the sex on an individual’s birth certificate is freely available in public records in North Carolina and other States and, if so, whether individuals have a Due Process privacy interest in such information; and (2) the degree to which a law in general, and Part I in particular, must burden a fundamental right in order to warrant strict scrutiny.”

At the center of the arguments are three individual plaintiffs. Judge Thomas Schroeder wrote the following in his opinion regarding what the plaintiffs go through and why he issued this injunction to block the enforcement of HB2:

“On the current record, the individual transgender Plaintiffs 37 Here, too, as with the informational privacy claim, Plaintiffs’ real problem appears to be various States’ inflexible rules for changing one’s sex on a birth certificate, in so far as Part I permits transgender users who did not have any surgery to use facilities matching their gender identity as long as their birth certificate has been changed – an issue the parties have not adequately addressed…have clearly shown that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. All three transgender Plaintiffs submitted declarations stating that single occupancy bathrooms and other similar facilities are generally unavailable at UNC and other public agencies. In fact, two of the individual transgender Plaintiffs indicate that they are not aware of any single occupancy facilities in the buildings in which their classes are held. Part I therefore interferes with these individuals’ ability to participate in their work and educational activities. As a result, some of these Plaintiffs limit their fluid intake and resist the urge to use a bathroom whenever possible. Such behavior can lead to serious medical consequences, such as urinary tract infections, constipation, and kidney disease.”

A trial is scheduled to begin on November 14, the Monday after Election Day. Friday’s ruling applies only the bathroom provision of the law as it related to the UNC system. Other provisions of the law, including the provision that prohibits local municipalities from extending nondiscrimination protections to LGBT people, will be considered by the court then.

House Bill 2 was passed by the General Assembly and signed by Governor Pat McCrory in March. Critics call it the worst piece of anti-LGBT legislation in the nation. HB2 supporters maintain that the law is “common sense” legislation intended to protect North Carolinians.

Statements on the Preliminary Injunction

Joaquín Carcaño, lead plaintiff in the case:

“Today is a great day for me and hopefully this is the start to chipping away at the injustice of H.B. 2 that is harming thousands of other transgender people who call North Carolina home. Today, the tightness that I have felt in my chest every day since H.B. 2 passed has eased. But the fight is not over: we won’t rest until this discriminatory law is defeated.”

Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal senior attorney:

“We are thrilled that the court put a temporary stop to some of the grave harm H.B. 2 imposes on our transgender clients. This ruling is an important first step to make sure that thousands of LGBT people who call North Carolina home – particularly transgender people – get the privacy, respect, and protections afforded others in the state. As we prepare for trial, we are more determined than ever to ensure equal justice for all North Carolinians.”

Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina:

“We’re thrilled that the court ruled on the right side for our clients today and that our clients are one step closer to being free from the discrimination that this harmful law imposes on them simply because they are transgender. We’re confident justice will prevail in the larger case after the judge hears all the evidence at trial this fall so that all gay and transgender North Carolinians will be free from the harm of H.B. 2.”

Bob Stephens, General Council to Governor Pat McCrory:

“The Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act is still in effect. The judge’s limited injunction only applies to three individuals and is based on a Fourth Circuit decision recently stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not a final resolution of this case, and the governor will continue to defend North Carolina law.”

From UNC:

“Late today we received notice that Judge Thomas Schroeder has granted the motion by the plaintiffs in the Carcaño case for a preliminary injunction. Our attorneys are still in the process of reviewing the court’s 83-page order, and we will fully comply with its directive. We have long said that the University has not and will not be taking steps to enforce HB2. As President Spellings has emphasized all along, the University has been caught in the middle of a conflict that we did not create between state law and federal guidance. We welcome resolution of these issues by the court so that we can focus all of our efforts on our primary mission—educating students. As reflected in long-standing University policy, we do not discriminate on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and we are fully committed to being open and welcoming to individuals of all backgrounds.”