In a striking act of civil disobedience, a transgender woman was arrested for using a women’s restroom at the Florida Capitol, only to have her case dismissed due to a procedural oversight by the state.
According to Yahoo! News, in a case that drew attention to Florida’s controversial restroom access law, Marcy Rheintgen, a 21-year-old transgender woman, saw her misdemeanor trespassing charge dropped after the state missed a critical legal deadline.
On March 19, Rheintgen, a college student from Illinois, entered a women’s restroom on the second floor of the House Office Building at the Florida Capitol. This action was a deliberate protest against a 2023 law supported by GOP lawmakers that prohibits individuals from using restrooms designated for the opposite sex in specific public facilities. Before her protest, Rheintgen sent a letter to Florida lawmakers, detailing the precise time and place of her intended demonstration.
In her letter, she expressed her opposition to the law, stating, “I’m just a normal college student who thinks this law is wrong.” Following her entry into the restroom, Capitol Police arrested her on a charge of misdemeanor trespassing. After the arrest, Rheintgen was taken to the Leon County Detention Facility, where she spent the night in a solitary cell.
The next day, on March 20, she was released on pretrial conditions. Within a week of her arrest, court records show that her case was initially set for diversion, a process that could have resolved the matter without a formal trial. However, the case took a significant turn as the legal proceedings unfolded over the following months.
On June 11, 2025, during a pretrial hearing, the state claimed that an information—a formal charging document—had been filed against Rheintgen. Yet, as noted by Assistant Public Defender Theodore Summers, the document was neither recorded in the court system nor provided to the defense. Summers later stated, “Although the state indicated that an information was filed at the pretrial hearing on June 11, 2025, it has not been docketed ... nor has a copy been served to counsel.”
He added, “Counsel emailed the state that same day asking for a copy and did not receive a response.” On June 18, Summers filed a notice highlighting that the 90-day speedy trial period, which Rheintgen had not waived, had expired. He requested that she be permanently discharged from the charge due to the state’s failure to meet this deadline.
Assistant State Attorney Chapman Evans filed an information dated June 16, but it was not electronically submitted until June 18, after the speedy trial period had ended. This filing came roughly 40 minutes after the defense had already moved to have the charge dismissed. Evans did not immediately reply to inquiries from the Tallahassee Democrat regarding the reasons behind the delay.
On June 20, Leon County Judge Lashawn Riggans signed an order dismissing the charge against Rheintgen in chambers. Throughout the court documents, Capitol Police and the State Attorney’s Office referred to Rheintgen by her male birth name.
In contrast, the Public Defender’s Office and Judge Riggans used her preferred name, “Marcy,” with footnotes explaining the importance of respecting an individual’s gender identity, citing guidance from the American Bar Association.
Reacting to the dismissal, Rheintgen expressed relief and shared her thoughts with the Tallahassee Democrat on June 29. She speculated on the state’s delay, saying, “I think they messed it up on purpose because they knew this was bad publicity for them.” She continued, “And they were scared of what could happen, like politically, that this would just cause a bunch of political blowback, which I think it would if I went to jail.”
Rheintgen also spoke about the emotional toll of the case, noting, “I’m glad the charge was dropped and noted I had been really scared about being prosecuted.” Despite the fear and uncertainty, she emphasized her gratitude for the outcome. “I’m so glad to be free,” she said, reflecting on the resolution of her case.
The dismissal of Rheintgen’s charge brings to light the ongoing debate over restroom access laws in Florida and beyond. Her act of protest, though brief, underscored the personal risks individuals may take to challenge policies they view as discriminatory.
As the legal process concluded in her favor, the case leaves lingering questions about the enforcement of such laws and the state’s handling of related prosecutions.