South Carolina tried to do the obvious: keep school bathrooms separated by biological sex to protect privacy and safety. A single plaintiff challenged that law, and an appeals court froze it. This week, the Supreme Court declined to unfreeze it while the case proceeds. That means the injunction stays in place—for now.

This is a procedural skirmish, not the war. The justices did not rule on the merits. They simply chose not to intervene at this early stage. Crucially, three Republican-appointed justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch—would have let South Carolina’s protections take effect. That’s a flashing neon sign that the state’s position is far from dead when the core questions finally reach the high court.

The case started with one ninth-grader who identifies as male and wants access to the boys’ restroom. The Fourth Circuit sided with the student and put the state’s law on ice while litigation plays out. South Carolina asked the Supreme Court to lift that pause; the Court declined, without commentary, as it often does on emergency applications.

Parents should read this for what it is: a temporary win for the activist bench that keeps substituting ideology for common sense, and a reminder that the fight for basic boundaries in schools has to be relentless and smart. If state lawmakers can’t draw a line around bathrooms and locker rooms, then who is in charge of our schools—local communities or robed mandarins on the coasts?

Context matters. The Supreme Court has already upheld state bans on gender-transition procedures for minors, affirming that states have a compelling interest in protecting children from irreversible medicalization. The justices are also teeing up a separate clash over fairness in girls’ sports. Both trends cut against the notion that courts must bulldoze every sex-based safeguard in the name of a radical gender agenda.

South Carolina’s brief framed the issue the right way: these are questions “fraught with emotions and differing perspectives,” which is exactly why elected legislatures—answerable to parents—should set the rules while cases move forward. That’s how federalism works. You don’t let one lawsuit dictate policy for every child in every school district while the merits are still being argued.

Opponents insist there’s no harm in letting boys into girls’ facilities if those boys “identify” as girls. That erases the core principle at stake: privacy and safety are sex-based, not feelings-based. Teen girls deserve spaces where their bodies aren’t exposed to males, period. It’s not hateful to say it; it’s humane. It’s also how schools functioned—without controversy—for generations.

Politically, this is a losing hill for the left. Across the country, parents who would otherwise disagree on plenty of things agree on this. They want clear rules, not chaos. They want administrators focused on reading and math, not policing pronouns in bathrooms. They want their daughters to change for gym without fear or awkwardness. They want boys to be boys and girls to be girls, with dignity for everyone and special treatment for no one.

What happens next? The case goes back through the lower courts, where South Carolina will defend its law on the merits. Evidence, not activism, should carry the day. The state can and should show that sex-separated facilities are a longstanding, neutral, and minimally invasive way to protect students’ privacy while providing reasonable accommodations—single-user restrooms, for example—without upending everyone else’s rights.

Parents don’t need platitudes. They need policy. That means passing and defending clear sex-based standards for bathrooms and locker rooms, demanding administrators enforce them, and electing school boards and legislators who won’t fold when the activist machine shows up with hashtags and threats.

This week’s order is a pause, not a precedent. The momentum inside the Court on youth issues—from medicalization to sports—suggests common sense still has a path to victory. South Carolina’s bathroom protections can be restored. Other states can fortify theirs. And when this debate finally reaches the merits at the Supreme Court, three justices have already hinted which way the wind is blowing.

In the meantime, keep the pressure on locally. Show up. Speak up. Protect your kids.