Group files federal complaint over Deerfield transgender student using locker room

Deerfield Public Schools District 109 is in the national crosshairs, with a conservative group filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accusing the district of forcing middle school students to change into gym clothes in front of a transgender student.
The incident previously gained national attention after the mother of one of the students, Nicole Georgas, went on Fox News to criticize the district over the alleged incident. She also spoke during a school board meeting to demand that locker rooms and bathrooms be designated for either biological males or biological females, arguing there is 'already a gender-neutral option.'
In a previous statement, the district said students are not required to change into gym clothes in front of others in locker rooms and have 'multiple options to change in a private location if they wish.'
The district said its policies and procedures, including those related to students' use of locker rooms, are in line with state laws, the Illinois School Code and guidance from the Illinois State Board of Education.
'District 109 is committed to providing a learning environment where all students and staff are respected and supported,' the statement said.
Conservative nonprofit America First Legal (AFL) announced Tuesday it had filed a complaint with the criminal section of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, urging it to conduct a criminal investigation into District 109 and its administrators over the alleged incident.
A DOJ spokesman declined comment, but a department source with knowledge of the complaint confirmed it was submitted. Attempts to reach the Illinois State Board of Education for comment were unsuccessful.
AFL claims the district violated Title IX and President Donald Trump's Executive Order 14168, called 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.' AFL was founded in 2021 by Stephen Miller, a senior Trump advisor.
According to AFL's allegations, the district's policy of allowing the transgender student to use the girls' bathroom and locker room led to a protest by a group of teenage girls who refused to change for gym class.
AFL claims school administrators 'admonished (the students), and threatened them with discipline for 'misgendering' the boy and refusing to change for PE.'
'Shockingly, the school administrators, including the superintendent of student services, and the assistant principal, entered the girls' locker room and used their authority to intimidate the girls into changing in front of the boy,' the AFL said.
In the release, Ian Prior, an AFL senior counsel, claimed the students' 'First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights' had been 'sacrificed at the altar of radical transgender madness and the woke government bureaucrats that view the Constitution as nothing more than toilet paper' and district officials 'should face the long arm of our Justice Department.'
Protestors on both sides of the controversy were expected at Thursday evening's school board meeting, with Moms For Liberty Lake County and several LGBTQ organizations expected to advocate for support.
Kristal Larson, who is the executive director of the LGBTQ+ Center Lake County, Avon Township's clerk and a transgender woman, said during a transgender visibility event last month that there is 'a lot of anger' and 'concern' over what has been happening in Deerfield.
'There's fear that other schools may be targeted in the same way, and that Lake County can become unsafe,' Larson said.
But the controversy over the unidentified transgender student's bathroom and locker room use goes far beyond Lake County's, and even the state's, borders, Larson added, saying the transgender community has been a target of the new presidential administration.
Executive orders from the Trump administration seek to stop transgender, nonbinary and intersex people from changing their gender markers on passports or serving in the military, force transgender women in federal prisons to be housed with men and bar them from participation in female sports.
The orders also attempt to end gender-affirming care for transgender people younger than 19, and prohibit federal spending on the promotion of 'gender ideology.'
'Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women's domestic abuse shelters to women's workplace showers,' Trump wrote in an executive order.
The Deerfield controversy has attracted attention from unusual places. Last month, District 109 put out a statement saying it was aware members of the community had received communications asking them to complete a survey about Deerfield schools, which they clarified were not from the district. In the statement, the district said it was not aware of who was distributing the survey.
In late March, Dave Nayak, a Chicago-area politician and former Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for the District 20 seat and said he had turned on the 'radical left,' announced he had commissioned a survey from conservative pollster group M3 about the district's transgender policies, ultimately calling for the district to change its policies.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

27 minutes ago

• USA Today

US bombs Iran: Trump's gamble: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?

It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites considered crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." Watch Trump's address to the nation after US bombed Iranian nuke sites More: US on 'high alert' for Iran retaliation, says nuke program 'obliterated' That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster, Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate over whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. Though most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the decision, some people prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. It's the stuff of Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing early June 22. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq War. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching a strike despite his campaign promises. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On June 23, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.

Newsweek

30 minutes ago

• Newsweek

'Mass Layoff' Provision in Trump Bill Sparks Alarm: 'Deeply Concerning'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A provision in the Senate budget bill would allow for millions of dollars to go directly toward President Donald Trump and the administration's ability to lay off federal workers without the consent of Congress. It is a move that Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, called "deeply, deeply concerning." The provision, written by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would give $100 million to the Office of Budget Management (OMB), according to Government Executive. The office is run by Project 2025 author Russ Vought, a proponent of mass government layoffs, which are a central tenet of Project 2025. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on June 18, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP Photo Olinsky referenced the lawsuits by federal employees fired by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts, telling Newsweek: "[This bill is] exactly the kind of thing that the president has been trying to do, I would say, illegally, as he seeks to shut down departments or agencies, or limit [agencies] to a handful of staff down from 1000s and do large mass layoffs and other kinds of cuts to entire functions or programs." Those in favor of the bill have said: "Any president should have the ability to clear the waste he or she has identified without obstruction." Newsweek contacted Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, via email for comment. Why It Matters Many of the people affected by mass federal layoffs initiated by DOGE at the start of Trump's second term are now in court as they were made without congressional approval. The provision would allow for federal employees to be fired with little to no legal recourse. Olinsky told Newsweek that it would lead to current and future distrust in the government by federal workers. Federal work used to be a lesser paid but significantly more stable line of work. If the provision passes, federal work will be seen as a much less realistic plan for long-term employment and will result in bright and capable Americans choosing to work in the private sector. What To Know The provision of the bill, which is the Senate's version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the House, appears in a section about government spending and reorganization by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It would revitalize a provision last used in 1984 that allows the president to reorganize the federal government. However, Olinsky explained to Newsweek that it differs from the 1984 provision in one significant way. "Those previous reorganization authorities that were granted to the president still had a role for Congress," he said. Congress then had a certain amount of time to either approve or disapprove of the plan, and that determined whether the president's plan could go into effect. "In the current reorganization language, it says that most of the statute that's currently on the books, or that was on the books through 1984, will not apply," Olinsky said. "And it basically says the president can put together a reorganization plan, and as long as it's making government smaller, it is deemed approved. "So, there would be no further review by Congress, no further action. It would simply be automatic. It is approved by this language without [Congress] having seen it first. That is dramatically concerning to me." Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Senator Rand Paul, chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, talks with reporters in the Russell building on June 17, 2025, in Washington. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images Olinsky added: "The executive actions that the Trump administration has been taking are absolutely taking Project 2025, the most extreme parts of it, and putting them into effect. And, actually going much further in many cases." Project 2025 says that the president should be able to " employees." It speaks in broad terms about federal employees, whom its authors see as part of the "federal bureaucracy." "Federal employees are often ideologically aligned—not with the majority of the American people, but with one another, posing a profound problem for republican government, a government "of, by, and for" the people," Project 2025 says. Olinsky said that people fired as a result of DOGE cuts could continue their suits in court, but anyone fired under the new provision would not have a case against the government. He said the only means of legal recourse for fired employees would be if mass firings reduced the government's ability to monitor enforcement functions. For example, if the White House fired every member of an agency that oversaw labor standards, someone could potentially sue and say their firing undermined government enforcement work. Other critics of this move say it directly undermines Congress' ability to govern, as government spending is one of Congress' primary responsibilities. Olinsky said there is a chance the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision defies the Byrd Rule, which says that all reconciliation packages have to focus on budget issues and cannot stray into other parts of government. Olinsky believes the provision violates the Byrd Rule, but whether enough members of the Senate and/or the parliamentarian believe the same is "an open question," he said. What People Are Saying Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress, told Newsweek: "This [bill] would basically give [Trump] carte blanche to refashion the entire federal government in ways that he likes. "Now, even under this language, it basically means you have to make the government smaller, not larger. But there's a lot of playing you could do to assist with [Trump's] priorities and stifle functions of government that he just doesn't like. "This should be deeply, deeply concerning to anyone." The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: "This provision would reestablish the authority for a president to reorganize government as long as these plans do not result in an increase in federal agencies and the plan does not result in an increase in federal spending." What Happens Next The House does not have a similar rule, so if the provision remains in the Senate version of the bill, it cannot be removed through a parliamentarian complaint to the Bird Rule by the House.

Bloomberg

40 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Trump Warns Against Rising Oil Prices Following Iran Attack

President Donald Trump demanded that energy producers keep down oil prices following US military strikes on Iran, which drove prices higher amid fears the attack could provoke a wider conflict in the Middle East. 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING! YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON'T DO IT!' Trump posted Monday on social media.