Six years ago, in a case that originated in my (Charis’s) home school district, the Missouri Supreme Court redefined “sex” in state law from biology to perception. In June of this year, the same court reversed course—but the damage was done.
When legislators fail to do their jobs, courts occasionally—too often—step in and end up making policy decisions from the bench. But even if you like those decisions, that isn’t their role. The courts should stick to litigation, not legislation.
The case in question started in 2009, when female fourth-grader RJ Appleberry began to identify as a male. Four years later, the Blue Springs School District allowed her to compete on the eighth-grade football team on the condition that she use a single-person, unisex restroom rather than the boys’ locker room.
In 2014, Appleberry requested access to the boys’ restroom after obtaining an amended birth certificate marking her legal sex as “male.” The school district refused, choosing to protect the privacy and safety of all of its students. The Appleberry family responded with a lawsuit, launching the decade-long legal battle of R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School District.
The Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination “on the grounds of…sex” in “public accommodations” such as school facilities. Appleberry claimed that her “legal sex… [was] male” and that being denied access to the male restrooms and locker rooms amounted to sex discrimination.
In a 5-2 ruling, the Missouri Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to proceed—without directly addressing the meaning of “sex” in the Human Rights Act. Then, a trial court jury, also without being offered a concrete definition of “sex,” found that the school district had discriminated on the basis of Appleberry’s “male sex” and awarded $175,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages.
However, the trial judge disagreed and issued a judgment “notwithstanding the verdict.” Appleberry appealed, which brought the case right back to the Missouri Supreme Court.
On June 10, 2025, the court did what it failed to do in 2019, actually interpreting the Human Rights Act to determine “the legal definition of the term ‘sex’” in the Act. The key question was whether the legislature intended that “sex” should be defined biologically, using criteria such as male or female genitalia.
The court concluded that the “plain and ordinary meaning of ‘sex’ refers to one’s biological classification as male or female.” In other words, no matter what her birth certificate says, Appleberry is female and, therefore, denying her access to male facilities does not amount to sex discrimination.
The Missouri Supreme Court got the answer right, but it should not have been forced to answer the question in the first place.
Especially where volatile issues such as gender are involved, the meaning of a few words can have significant legal and political consequences. In today’s day and age, legislators are foolish to assume that the meaning of terms like “sex” has remained settled or widely accepted. If those terms appear in a statute, then it is the legislature’s responsibility to define them there.
Some, or many, legislators—especially those representing divided constituencies—may want to avoid the political fallout that might come with taking sides on such a controversial issue. Lawyers, especially those motivated by a political agenda, will work to fill that vacuum, with courts likely to step in where legislators fail to tread.
This undemocratic result undermines the people’s right to govern themselves.
As President Andrew Jackson put it, “…eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and… you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.” That vigilance requires making sure that each branch of government does its assigned job. Legislators, not judges, have the responsibility to legislate.
This is true even when a court gets the answer right. In R.M.A. v. Blue Springs School District, it took a decade of litigation—and two trips to the state’s highest court—to get the right result. That would not have been necessary, and the risk of misinterpreting state law would have been minimized, if the legislature had provided the clarity that its duty to legislate requires.
Some political activists do not care if the legislative or the judicial branch hands them a victory; they just want to win. But it makes all the difference for our liberty whether elected representatives or judges make policy decisions that affect our lives and families.
Many states have laws like Missouri’s Human Rights Act that use, but do not define, terms that are now the centerpiece of litigation. I never expected that my school district would be a player in this conflict, but the message is clear: it’s time for legislators to step up and do their jobs, whatever the cost.
The post It’s Time for Legislators To Step Up appeared first on The Daily Signal.