House committee advances Student Restroom Privacy Act after contentious hearing; vote 7‑4 to report with H‑1 substitute

The Michigan House Committee on Education and Workforce on Jan. 28 considered House Bill 40‑24, titled the Student Restroom Privacy Act, which would require public educational institutions to designate multiple‑occupancy restrooms, locker rooms and changing areas by students' sex assigned at birth. After roughly two hours of testimony from supporters and opponents, the committee voted to report the bill with the H‑1 substitute by a roll call of 7 ayes to 4 nays.

Sponsor's argument: Rep. Tim Fox (sponsor) told the committee the bill is "common sense legislation that addresses a growing problem in our educational system" and framed the measure as protecting students' privacy and safety in vulnerable spaces. Rep. Fox said the bill "requires educational institutes to ensure multiple occupancy spaces... are only used by individuals based on the individual ***," adding in plain terms, "boys use boys' bathrooms and girls use girls' bathrooms."

Supporters' testimony: Proponents who testified included Kristen Lee of Citizens Defending Freedom; Dr. Linda Lee Tarver, an educational advocate and former Michigan civil rights commissioner; Tim Schmeg of the Michigan Association of Christian Schools; and others who said the bill protects privacy and aligns school practice with parental expectations. Kristen Lee cited Michigan's Revised School Code (MCL 380.10) and argued parents have the right to direct their children's education; Dr. Tarver referenced recent presidential executive orders and state rules in support of separating facilities by sex.

Opponents' testimony: Kyle Zawake, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, said the bill "would inflict a real and significant harm for students" and argued it likely conflicts with federal civil‑rights protections, including Title IX and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Zawake testified that bathroom restrictions aimed at transgender students "require an invasion of medical privacy, and undermine civil rights protections," and warned that enforcement would institutionalize gender policing in schools.

Committee questions and concerns: Members pressed sponsors on enforcement, potential costs to districts and legal risk. Representative Weiss and others asked whether the bill could cause local districts to incur expenses; witnesses acknowledged a house fiscal analysis flagged possible local costs for some districts. Representative Burns asked whether the bill would risk federal funding under Title IX; the sponsor said he was not "overly concerned" and that he believed the administration's policy direction aligned with the bill.

Votes and formal action: Vice Chair Linting moved to report House Bill 40‑24 as substitute H‑1 with recommendation. The clerk called the roll; the transcript records the following votes as read aloud during the roll call: Chair DeBoer (yes), Rep. Linting (yes), Rep. Katt (yes), Rep. Fox (yes), another member (aye), Rep. Saint Germain (yes), Rep. Pat Lowe (yes), Rep. Wilson (no), Rep. Clozar (no), Rep. Weiss (no) and Rep. Burns (no). The clerk announced "7 ayes, 4 nays, 0 pass; the motion prevails." The committee then reported the bill with the H‑1 substitute and recommendation to the full House.

Legal and practical implications: Opponents warned of likely litigation under federal civil‑rights laws and cited past court decisions addressing transgender students' restroom access. Supporters argued the change preserves privacy for cisgender students, citing anecdotes of discomfort and alleged incidents. Several members asked for legal analysis and budget clarifications before further action.

What to watch next: The committee's 7‑4 vote sends the bill to the full House for further consideration. Witnesses and members signaled ongoing debate over enforcement details, costs to districts and potential federal legal challenges.

Direct quotes in this article come only from speakers listed in the transcript and are attributed accordingly.