North Carolina father sues school district that refused to disclose bathroom policy for his daughter

A North Carolina father has filed a federal lawsuit against his children’s school district after officials repeatedly refused to tell him whether biological males could be permitted to use the same restrooms as his fourth-grade daughter. Brandon Matthews, a practicing Christian in Cabarrus County, says he spent months asking straightforward questions and got nothing but evasion in return.

The suit, filed in the Middle District of North Carolina, names the Cabarrus County Board of Education, Superintendent Dr. John Kopicki, and the principals of Mount Pleasant Elementary School and Mount Pleasant High School. Matthews isn’t asking the court to ban anyone from any bathroom. He wants the district to tell him what its policy actually is, and to notify him if a member of the opposite biological sex is authorized to enter facilities his children use.

That distinction matters. And the district’s refusal to answer a parent’s direct question is the heart of the case.

Months of stonewalling

The timeline tells the story. On April 13, Matthews attended a school board meeting where board attorney William Isenhour said the district handles bathroom and locker room situations “on a case-by-case basis with the goal of addressing concerns of all students and their families.” No written policy was cited. No public document was offered.

Matthews returned to the board on May 11, this time with his daughter. He urged officials to maintain sex-separated bathrooms. His daughter, a fourth-grader, addressed the board herself.

“I’m personally a girl and I wouldn’t want a boy following me in the girls’ bathroom. It’s inappropriate.”

Less than three weeks later, Matthews put his concerns in writing. He asked both principals, at the elementary school and the high school his son attends, to notify him if any biological male was permitted to use the female restroom facilities his daughter uses, and made a parallel request regarding his son’s facilities.

Both principals responded on June 8. The answers were nearly identical, and entirely unhelpful. The elementary school principal wrote that “because matters involving individual students are confidential,” the school “cannot confirm, disclose, or provide advance notice regarding the status, identity, or accommodations of any particular student.”

The principal added that if Matthews or his daughter “became aware of a specific situation affecting her experience, they could contact the school to discuss his concerns.”

In other words: we won’t tell you our policy, and we won’t warn you if it affects your child. But if your child discovers something on her own, feel free to call.

A legal theory rooted in the Supreme Court

Matthews is represented by Nicholas Barry, senior counsel at the America First Legal Foundation, along with co-counsel Philip Thomas. Barry told Fox News Digital that the district’s confidentiality excuse doesn’t hold up.

“Well, nobody asked for individual student information, so that’s a non-answer.”

Barry is right on the facts. Matthews’ written requests asked for policy disclosure and advance notification, not the identity of any particular student. The district conflated a policy question with a privacy question, and then hid behind the confusion it created.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Matthews submitted a sworn declaration stating his religious belief that sex is immutable and that his children should not be expected to undress or use restrooms in the presence of members of the opposite sex.

The legal argument leans heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which involved parents seeking notice and the ability to opt out of LGBT-related classroom instruction on religious grounds. The high court’s recent willingness to protect parental rights in that context gives Matthews’ attorneys a foundation to build on. The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling allowing states to bar biological males from women’s sports reflects the same broader legal shift toward recognizing biological sex distinctions in institutional settings.

Barry framed the potential impact in broad terms.

“I do think as Mahmoud percolates out and as cases like this get decided, it’s going to require that school districts provide notice and an opportunity to opt out to parents on this specific issue.”

What the father is, and isn’t, asking for

The preliminary injunction motion, filed on a Friday, asks the court to require the district to disclose “its policies governing sex-separated bathrooms and locker rooms and whether members of the opposite sex are permitted to access, or have accessed, facilities used by his children.” It also seeks a requirement that the district notify Matthews when a member of the opposite sex “has been authorized to enter, or is expected to enter” a facility his children use.

Matthews’ attorneys stated plainly in the motion: “Plaintiff seeks only notice and information, he does not seek to prevent any student from using any facility.”

That framing is deliberate. This case is not about excluding anyone. It is about whether a parent has the right to know what is happening in the school his child attends every day. The district’s position, stripped of its bureaucratic language, amounts to this: parents are not entitled to know the rules governing who enters their children’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

That is a position that should alarm any parent, regardless of politics.

Matthews has been unable to locate any written, publicly available policy from the district explaining when students may be expected to share restrooms or changing facilities with members of the opposite sex. The lawsuit itself does not allege that Matthews knows a biological male has used his daughter’s bathroom. The point is that he has no way to find out, because the district won’t tell him.

Barry put it simply: “Brandon Matthews does not currently know whether a male is using his fourth grade daughter’s bathroom.” And: “Without that information, he’s just in the dark and… He really can’t make any good decisions without that information.”

A pattern in Cabarrus County

This is not the first time America First Legal has taken Cabarrus County Schools to court. The foundation previously filed a separate lawsuit involving Cox Mill High School in the same district, alleging that three female students were required to share restrooms, locker rooms, and changing spaces with a biological male. That case involves direct allegations of opposite-sex facility sharing, unlike the Matthews case, which centers on the district’s refusal to disclose whether such sharing is even occurring.

Barry drew the distinction clearly: “The first lawsuit we filed, there are allegations that a male is using our three client females’ restroom and locker rooms and changing spaces. Which is different than what we’re doing here. Here, it’s a straightforward attack on Cabarrus County Schools policy to get information about it and to know whether it’s impacting our clients’ daughter and son at school right now.”

Two lawsuits against the same district, both involving the same fundamental issue, suggest a systemic problem with how Cabarrus County handles parental concerns about sex-separated facilities. The pattern echoes broader institutional conflicts playing out across the country, from a Michigan hospital that paid $410,000 to settle with a physician assistant fired over transgender policy objections to school board disputes that have drawn federal scrutiny.

The silence says something

Fox News Digital sent Cabarrus County Schools detailed questions about the allegations. The district did not immediately respond. That silence is consistent with the district’s handling of Matthews’ own inquiries, a pattern of refusing to engage with questions it apparently finds uncomfortable.

The court has not yet ruled on Matthews’ claims. But the legal question at the center of this case is one that school districts across the country will eventually have to answer: Do parents have a constitutional right to know the policies governing who enters their children’s bathrooms and locker rooms?

The tension between institutional bureaucracies and the parents they ostensibly serve has been building for years. Cases like this one force the question into the open.

Matthews himself, at the May 11 school board meeting, tried to defuse accusations that his concerns were aimed at any individual child. “Nobody’s targeting a child,” he said. “All we’re asking is that the bathrooms are accessible to each gender. If they want that, then create a new bathroom.”

That is not a radical demand. It is a common-sense request from a father who wants to know what is happening in his daughter’s school. The fact that he had to file a federal lawsuit to get an answer tells you everything about where the priorities of institutional authority now lie.

When a school district would rather face a federal judge than answer a parent’s question, the district has already told you whose interests it is protecting, and it isn’t the children’s.