RADICAL Obama Judge’s TWISTED Title IX RULING

Children's restroom with yellow stalls and white sinks — Photo: ChiccoDodiFC / Shutterstock

A federal judge appointed by President Obama ruled that a teenage girl has no civil right under federal law to a school bathroom free of biological males, throwing out her family’s Title IX lawsuit against an Illinois school district.

Quick Take

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman dismissed the lawsuit filed by student “F.F.” and her father against Valley View Community Unit School District 365U.
The ruling found Title IX does not guarantee girls a bathroom or locker room free of transgender students.
The case adds to a growing split among federal appeals courts over how “sex” is defined under Title IX.
A separate group, Awake Illinois, had already filed a federal civil rights complaint against the same district over its bathroom policies.

Illinois Judge Throws Out Bathroom Lawsuit

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, appointed to the Northern District of Illinois by President Obama in 2010, dismissed the lawsuit brought by student F.F. and her father, James Ellard Fisher, against Valley View Community Unit School District 365U. The family argued the district’s policy of letting transgender students use restrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity violated Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in schools that receive government money.

The lawsuit began in August 2025, when F.F. filed a class-action complaint seeking a court order to stop the district’s policy, along with money damages. She asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction while the case moved forward, but Coleman denied that request first, then dismissed the case entirely months later.

What the Judge Actually Ruled

Coleman’s September 2025 opinion denying the preliminary injunction concluded that Title IX does not create the specific right F.F. was asking the court to protect. Her later dismissal went further, closing the case outright rather than letting it continue to trial. Critics online, including conservative commentators, quickly labeled Coleman an “activist judge,” pointing to a past ruling of hers that found undocumented immigrants have Second Amendment rights.

Before the lawsuit reached federal court, a separate group called Awake Illinois filed its own civil rights complaint against Valley View schools and the Illinois State Board of Education in April 2025. That complaint accused the district of violating Title IX by recommending and enforcing policies that let male students into female-only bathrooms and locker rooms, showing the dispute had already drawn outside attention before F.F.’s case was filed.

Courts Remain Split Nationwide

Coleman’s ruling is not an outlier. Federal appeals courts disagree sharply on this exact question. The Fourth and Seventh Circuits have ruled that blocking transgender students from bathrooms matching their gender identity can violate Title IX, while the full Eleventh Circuit rejected that same argument in an en banc decision. No single national rule currently binds every school district.

The Ninth Circuit added another layer in Parents for Privacy v. Barr, ruling that Title IX’s regulation allowing separate-sex facilities does not require schools to sort students strictly by biological sex, and does not stop districts from accommodating gender identity if they choose to. That decision cuts against the idea that federal law forces any single bathroom policy, leaving individual districts and judges to decide.

Obama-Appointed Activist Judge Dismisses Title IX Lawsuit Against Illinois School Districthttps://t.co/QyFYgICTdU pic.twitter.com/JP71hZZbhU

— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) July 20, 2026

The disagreement among courts means a ruling like Coleman’s in Illinois can look very different from one issued the same week in another state. For parents on both sides of this debate, that inconsistency is part of the frustration: whether a school’s bathroom policy survives a lawsuit may depend less on the law itself and more on which judge, and which circuit, ends up hearing the case.