A coalition of LGBTQ+ advocates is taking South Carolina to court over its bathroom law forcing transgender students to use restrooms according to their assigned sex at birth. The law mandates that K-12 schools deny transgenderstudents access to bathrooms aligned with their gender identity or face losing a quarter of their state funding.

The complaint, filed Tuesday, takes aim at Proviso 1.120, a provision enacted in July that advocates say strips trans students of fundamental rights. The law mandates that K-12 schools bar transgender students from restrooms matching their gender identity or risk losing a quarter of their state funding.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of 13-year-old John Doe and the South Carolina LGBTQ+ advocacy group Alliance for Full Acceptance, argues that Proviso 1.120 violates both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. “Proviso 1.120 is illegal, plain and simple. Trans students are not political pawns. Their rights are not optional,” Alexandra Brodsky, a senior attorney at Public Justice representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “And the human stakes are too high for states like South Carolina to break the law to score political points: Thousands of students are paying the price with their health and educations.”

A memo from the South Carolina Department of Education, issued on behalf of state superintendent Ellen Weaver, outlined strict guidelines for compliance. It called on districts to adjust restroom signage and student records, replacing references to “gender” with “biological sex,” which the state defines as “a person’s biological sex, either male or female, as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth.” According to the memo, only in exceptional cases—such as medical assistance or natural disasters—can students enter facilities that do not match the sex on their original birth certificate. The memo further directed districts to restrict restroom use to students’ sex assigned at birth under all other circumstances.

According to the lawsuit, John Doe faced suspension at his Berkeley County school after using the boys’ restroom. School administrators allegedly told the student that he could be expelled if he continued to use the restroom aligned with his gender identity, prompting his parents to withdraw him from the school. “I will not allow school officials or lawmakers to dehumanize my child because of their own ignorance. Adults need to educate themselves, read the science, and stop attacking students,” John Doe’s father said in a statement. “All students deserve to feel safe and supported in school, including my son.”

Joseph Wardenski, founder of Wardenski P.C., which is also representing the plaintiffs, warned of the law’s long-term harm to South Carolina’s transgender students. “Every day that Proviso 1.120 remains in effect, countless transgender students across South Carolina are being harmed,” Wardenski said in a statement. “As courts around the country have held, these types of bathroom bans cause trans students to suffer needless and preventable stigma, distress, and physical injuries. To prevent these harms, we will ask the court to intervene immediately to stop South Carolina from enforcing this discriminatory policy.”

The Fourth Circuit Court, whose jurisdiction includes South Carolina, ruled in the Virginia case Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board in 2020 that barring transgender students from bathrooms matching their gender identities is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argue that Proviso 1.120 blatantly ignores this precedent.

“Lawmakers who continue to target transgender youth with blatantly unconstitutional legislation should take note,” said AFFA executive director Chase Glenn. “If you pass these laws, you will be taken to court.”

The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction to halt enforcement of the law. If granted, the injunction would allow transgender students across South Carolina to use bathrooms matching their gender identity without the threat of discipline or harassment.