In a move that echoes federal and state nondiscrimination laws, Republican Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin’s proposed model policies for the treatment of transgender students have been endorsed by the state’s attorney general. The nonbinding legal analysis, issued by Attorney General Jason Miyares, asserts that the “Model Policies ensure that all students are treated with dignity and that parental involvement remains at the center.” These policies, according to Miyares, align with the law and warrant support and implementation from school boards across the state.
A surge of school boards is responding to the administration’s finalized guidelines, covering subjects from athletics to pronoun use. While these guidelines offer a roadmap for local districts in crafting their policies, they retract several accommodations for transgender students that were advocated by the prior Democratic administration. With conservative and religious groups praising the move and Democrats and LGBTQ advocates expressing concerns, divisions have become apparent.
This development has led to a divergence among school boards, with some situated in red-leaning regions adopting policies in line with Governor Youngkin’s stance, while others, primarily in blue areas, indicate their intent to oppose them. For example, Fairfax County Public Schools, the largest district in the state, communicated that it would uphold its guidelines for transgender students that do not align with Youngkin’s proposals.
The governor has insisted that school boards are obliged to adhere to the guidelines, yet details on the tools available for enforcement remain elusive. The legal implications of noncompliance are debated, with legal experts suggesting that violative school boards could be infringing on the 2020 law but uncertainty lingers regarding enforcement methods.
Miyares’ advisory opinion, spanning ten pages, evaluates the legality of the guidelines in relation to the U.S. Constitution, as well as state and federal laws. It contends that the athletics policies, which prioritize biological sex over gender identity for participation, do not contradict the Virginia Human Rights Act’s stance against gender identity discrimination. Regarding classroom identification and pronoun selection, the opinion underscores that the ultimate decision is vested in the student’s parents, thus not constituting sex-based discrimination.
The opinion echoes that the model policies are in harmony with legal provisions, concluding that they “offend neither the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, nor the (Virginia Human Rights Act).” While Youngkin lauds this affirmation, legal experts and advocates emphasize that opinions by the attorney general lack binding authority over the courts.
In a statement, Youngkin emphasizes that the attorney general’s opinion reinforces their model policies, asserting their commitment to empowering parents in the state. However, Eden Heilman, the ACLU of Virginia’s legal director, criticizes Miyares’ opinion, deeming it as misguided as the policies themselves.