ACLU Files Title IX Complaint Against Harrison County School District for Dress Code Discrimination
District’s Sex-Based Dress Code Perpetuates Harmful Stereotypes and Creates a Hostile Environment for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students
JACKSON, Miss. — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Mississippi filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Harrison County School District (HCSD) for implementing a sex-based dress code policy that perpetuates harmful stereotypes and discriminates against girls, especially students who are transgender or gender nonconforming.
The complaint was filed on behalf of Kimberly Hudson and her daughter, A.H., a 16-year-old transgender girl and rising junior at Harrison Central High School. HCSD’s dress code sets forth different requirements based on gender and requires students to “follow the dress attire consistent with their biological sex.” In one instance, A.H. was reprimanded by a school official and threatened with in-school suspension for wearing a dress to a regional band concert evaluation. Despite A.H.’s plea to participate, she was given an ultimatum to wear pants or face exclusion from the event.
Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The complaint argues that HCSD’s enforcement of sex-specific dress codes violates Title IX, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and excluding students from full participation in school activities.
“A.H.'s story is emblematic of other girls at Harrison County School District who have complained of the discriminatory dress code and hostile learning environment for LGBTQ+ students. HCSD has implemented sex-specific dress code policies that reinforce harmful sex stereotypes and create an environment where students are unfairly targeted and subjected to discriminatory enforcement practices,” said McKenna Raney-Gray, LGBTQ Justice Project staff attorney at the ACLU of Mississippi. “This has resulted in the loss of valuable class time, exclusion from school-sponsored events, and significant emotional distress for A.H. and other affected students.”
“Harrison County School District’s dress code forces students to follow rigid, binary sex stereotypes or risk being punished and excluded from school and extracurricular activities,” said Liza Davis, Skadden Fellow at the ACLU Women's Rights Project. “Sex-specific dress code policies that require students to dress according to their sex assigned at birth are harmful to all students, and especially transgender and gender nonconforming students who seek to dress in alignment with their gender identity and expression.”
A.H. and her family demand that HCSD eliminate sex-based distinctions and other gendered language in its sex-specific dress code policies and discontinue its discriminatory dress code enforcement practices that target girls, especially transgender girls and gender nonconforming students. They also request that OCR open an investigation into HCSD focused on sex discrimination that violates Title IX, and take remedial steps to ensure that no students in HCSD are discriminated against based on sex.
“I’m deeply concerned about the discriminatory practices within Harrison County School District that have unfairly targeted my daughter, along with other students. Transgender and gender nonconforming students should not be forced to choose between participating in school events or remaining true to their gender identity,” said Kimberly Hudson, mother of A.H. “We urge HCSD to take immediate steps to revise its dress code policies and create a more inclusive environment where all students can thrive.”
A copy of the complaint can be found online here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/harrison-county-school-district-office-for-civil-rights-complaint
Related Documents
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.