Name Sayantan Das Gupta (-01816910)

American Constitutional Law : Case Brief #1

Date: 10/15/12

In the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Sayan DasGupta representative of Pat Smith,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bayport University,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION:
Plaintiff was discriminated on the basis of his gender identity by the Defendant, violating his
Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment. Plaintiff was on the waiting-list for on
campus housing in Bayport University. A biological female who identifies as male and is in the
process of undergoing hormonal therapy as part of his gender transition, plaintiff requested to live
with a male friend. But the campus has a strict policy against opposite-sex living arrangements
and denied. Plaintiff sued the University due to its gender discrimination. On appeal, the 9 th
Circuit reversed the trial court, holding that people from the GBLT community deserve the same
protections as everyone else who attends a public university, and therefore applied the rational
basis scrutiny test.
Plaintiff requests this court to add transgendered people to the class of citizens protected by the
intermediate scrutiny test and compel Bayport University to stop discrimination solely based on
gender.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Pat Smith is a biological female who identifies as male and is taking hormones as part of

his gender transition. In 2005, Plaintiff was on a waiting list for on-campus housing at Bayport
University (a publicly ran university) which has a stringent nondiscrimination policy that includes
penalties for discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. At
the same time, a group of students from the campus Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian, and Transgendered
(GBLT) student association asked the university to include transgendered individuals to be added
to the list of groups protected from discrimination.
They alleged that such action was sought as there was an attitude of discrimination and prejudice
regarding transgender issues at Bayport, particularly within the administration. The University
responded by arguing that Bayport is a safe and supportive place for people of all walks of life,
regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion or gender. The dean of students was also
quoted as saying that no discrimination or harassment will be tolerated. However, Bayport did
not add transgendered individuals to its list of protected groups.
The director of campus housing informed the Plaintiff that should student housing become
available, it would be with a female roommate even though Plaintiff requested to live with a male
friend as part of his gender transition. The Defendants reasoning is the existence of a strict policy
against opposite-sex living arrangements. In fact, the Defendants argued that the problem would
simply go away because the Plaintiff was not guaranteed on-campus housing, due to his high
lottery number.
Plaintiff asserted that he has repeatedly been treated disrespectfully by several administrators and
staff throughout his attempts to secure appropriate housing, including the president, who
informed him specifically that the university has no interest in helping a transgendered student
find housing.
Plaintiff sued the University for its Discriminatory Practices and the trial court ruled in favor of
the Plaintiff. On appeal, however, the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court, holding that people from
the GBLT community deserve the same protections as everyone else who attends a public
university and therefore applied the Rational Basis Scrutiny test.

The timely appeal followed.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
The issue before the Court is as follows:
Whether publicly run Bayport Universitys strict policy against opposite-sex living arrangements
despite having a stringent nondiscrimination rule that includes penalties for discrimination based
on race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause
of the US Constitution and in which ways does it prevent the transgendered Plaintiff from
acquiring a roommate of his choice in on-campus housing.
Important to the resolution of this central issue is a) whether the intermediate scrutiny test
applies; and if so, b) whether the classification is substantially related to an important state
interest.

LEGAL STANDARDS:
a) Equal Protection Clause under 14th Amendment prohibiting discrimination based on gender.
b) State Action in accordance to Civil Rights Acts of 1883 underlying state involvements in
discrimination.
c) Craig vs. Boren of 1973 elevating gender discrimination from Rational Basis to Intermediate
Scrutiny.
The Defendants argue that, it is a)Simple management issue, b) changes in accommodation was
not even necessary based administrative convenience as Plaintiff had high lottery number, c)
accommodation based on protecting the plaintiff (now biologically male, but born a female)from
sexual harassment/assault in a male on-campus housing, d) 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals already
clarified a Rational Basis Test is sufficient

DISCUSSION:

Bayport University is a state funded university and any form of discriminatory practice in the
universitys part amount to State Action, this is not a simple internal management issue. The
States Classification violates the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution by discriminating
against the GENDER of the Plaintiff by prohibiting desired modes of accommodation solely
based on the fact that he is transgender. There is a historic precedent of discrimination against
GBLT people and since trans-genders are sparsely represented in college, an Intermediate
Scrutiny should apply. The State differentiated between sexes in response to statistics of a female
to male transgender in a male housing being more likely to face harassment or sexual assault;
which is an over-reaching generalization based on the fixed notions concerning the roles and
abilities of men and women. Moreover the State effectively assigns the Plaintiffs a gender role
based on overbroad gender based assumptions. The concept of the State acting to protect the
Plaintiff from a hypothetical assault simply does not satisfy any important government objective
and the means do not justify this discrimination. The policy fails the Intermediate Scrutiny Test. It
can be further argued that the University acting out of administrative convenience based on the
Plaintiffs high lottery number also does not justify the violation of Equal Protection. This does
not even pass the Rational Basis Test of a legitimate state objective.

1. There is State Action: This case clearly meets the State Action requirement from The Civil
Rights Cases (1883). Much like segregation in public schools had race as the sole factor, the
Plaintiff here is denied accommodation to housing of his choice solely based on his gender
classification in a public school. The evidence provided by the GBLT group clearly underlines a
prevalent environment of discrimination tacitly supported by the heads of the institution. The
State has to be held accountable.

2. The States Classification violates the Equal Protection Clause:

a. Inherent differences:

The state cannot deny housing to the Plaintiff based on his gender choice. Justice Ginsburg in
United States vs. Virginia (1996) states inherent differences between men and women should
not be used to denigrate either sex for artificial reasons. The inherent difference between a
transgendered male and a normal male (consenting to be the roommate) cannot be a reason to
exclude the Plaintiff from his choice of housing.

b. The State differentiation of sexes based on traditional over-broad assumptions:

In Craig vs. Boren (1976), it has been established that the State needs an exceedingly persuasive
justification to classify individuals purely based on gender. Here not only is the outmoded notion
of a female needing protection from men to succeed academically is being used, but moreover,
that gender role is being forced on an individual who identifies himself as a male! Finally
statistics of college sex assaults does not serve substantial governmental objective of treating
males less favorably than females (that a male to female transgender with a female roommate is
relatively safer) and the evidence is unpersuasive and too arbitrary.

3. Intermediate Scrutiny Test to State Classification:

Frontiero vs. Richardson (1973) established a cause for elevating sex discrimination to a higher
category than rational basis and Craig vs. Boren (1976) adopted the new standards of
Intermediate Scrutiny. The similarities of the cases (only the plight of the woman being replaced
with that of a transgender male) affirm the need for continuation of these precedents. As
mentioned earlier, protecting the plaintiff from a hypothetical danger does not signify compelling
state interest and the policy fails Intermediate Scrutiny.

Dissent = Rational Basis Test:

The administrative convenience factor is not even applicable in terms of Rational Basis. The
Plaintiff might as well not have been assigned any on-campus housing due to his high lottery

number. But administrative convenience was no justification to discriminate against the plaintiff
even when he was merely applying. This affirms that Bayport University consciously cultivates
an anti-GBLT sentiment. Justice Burger in Reed vs. Reed (1971) states administrative
convenience is no justification for violating the constitution. The rules on gender classifications
must be reasonable and have a rational relationship to state objective. Clearly the policy
administrative convenience practiced by Bayport University is too arbitrary and capricious to
even pass the Rational Basis Test in compliance to Reed precedent, so an Intermediate Scrutiny is
not necessary.
Counter - The overall attitude of the University as proved above requires a stricter form of
scrutiny- an Intermediate Scrutiny Test to weed out such rampant discriminations based on
gender. An institution, inherently apathetic to transgender students will find a way to pass the
Rational Basis Test and foster more inequalities.

CONCLUSION:
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court to add transgendered people to the class of citizens
protected by the intermediate scrutiny test to ensure the Defendants cannot discriminate on
housing based on a persons gender or sexual orientation.

Bibliography:
Epstein, Lee and Walker, Thomas G. Constitutional Law For a Changing America: Rights,
Liberties, and Justice. Seventh Edition. CQ Press, Washington DC: 2010
Cases used:
Civil Rights Cases (1883) Pg. 616
United States vs. Virginia 518 U.S. 515(1996) Pg. 635
Craig vs. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976) Pg. 630

Frontiero vs. Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Pg. 629

Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971)