Federal Court Revives Transgender Birth Certificate Lawsuit
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 100 days ago
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit against Oklahoma's prohibition on changing the sex listed on birth certificates.
The lawsuit was brought by three people who say their gender has changed and that the sex on their birth certificates should change accordingly. They allege violations of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh, writing for the panel, said that because "cisgender people" still have birth certificates that reflect their "gender identity" but transgender people do not, the policy has a disparate impact that "indicates discriminatory intent."
Oklahoma officials had contended there was no disparate impact because nobody, regardless of their identity, can amend the sex on their birth certificate.
Governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, said in 2021 he learned that the sex on birth certificates could be amended and issued an executive order to change it. "I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period," he said.
The panel assumed that maintaining accurate vital statistics about birth is a legitimate state interest, but "it is not rationally related to the policy because even if transgender people amend the sex listed on their birth certificates, Oklahoma retains and has access to original birth certificates," Judge McHugh wrote.
Officials also said they want to make sure all certificates list the correct sex of a person, but that position is undercut by the fact the state lets people amend the sex on their driver's license, according to the panel.
The other argument, that the policy helps ensure that biological males do not compete in women's sports, may be a legitimate interest, but the state ban on males' competing in female sports is enforced through affidavits, not birth certificates, the ruling noted. If birth certificates did become involved, the original certificates would still be available for review even if the policy is abolished, Judge McHugh said.
The suit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in 2023, who concluded that the policy "did not impair the ability of transgender people to express their gender identity or compel them to speak any message."
While the 10th Circuit panel reversed part of that ruling, it upheld the part dealing with the due process claim. "To assert a substantive due process claim, Plaintiffs needed to allege that their involuntary disclosures amount to state action. They failed to do so," Judge McHugh said.
Judge McHugh was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Harris Hartz and Richard Federico. In a partial dissent, Judge Hartz said he agreed the policy discriminates against transgender people but not that it discriminates on the basis of sex.
"No one could say that the Policy intentionally discriminates against males, or that it intentionally discriminates against females," he wrote. "The policy treats males and females (whether determined at birth or at present) identically. Which sex was intentionally discriminated against?"
Sources:
theepochtimes.com
wjla.com
city-journal.org
The lawsuit was brought by three people who say their gender has changed and that the sex on their birth certificates should change accordingly. They allege violations of their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carolyn McHugh, writing for the panel, said that because "cisgender people" still have birth certificates that reflect their "gender identity" but transgender people do not, the policy has a disparate impact that "indicates discriminatory intent."
Oklahoma officials had contended there was no disparate impact because nobody, regardless of their identity, can amend the sex on their birth certificate.
Governor Kevin Stitt, a Republican, said in 2021 he learned that the sex on birth certificates could be amended and issued an executive order to change it. "I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period," he said.
The panel assumed that maintaining accurate vital statistics about birth is a legitimate state interest, but "it is not rationally related to the policy because even if transgender people amend the sex listed on their birth certificates, Oklahoma retains and has access to original birth certificates," Judge McHugh wrote.
Officials also said they want to make sure all certificates list the correct sex of a person, but that position is undercut by the fact the state lets people amend the sex on their driver's license, according to the panel.
The other argument, that the policy helps ensure that biological males do not compete in women's sports, may be a legitimate interest, but the state ban on males' competing in female sports is enforced through affidavits, not birth certificates, the ruling noted. If birth certificates did become involved, the original certificates would still be available for review even if the policy is abolished, Judge McHugh said.
The suit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in 2023, who concluded that the policy "did not impair the ability of transgender people to express their gender identity or compel them to speak any message."
While the 10th Circuit panel reversed part of that ruling, it upheld the part dealing with the due process claim. "To assert a substantive due process claim, Plaintiffs needed to allege that their involuntary disclosures amount to state action. They failed to do so," Judge McHugh said.
Judge McHugh was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Harris Hartz and Richard Federico. In a partial dissent, Judge Hartz said he agreed the policy discriminates against transgender people but not that it discriminates on the basis of sex.
"No one could say that the Policy intentionally discriminates against males, or that it intentionally discriminates against females," he wrote. "The policy treats males and females (whether determined at birth or at present) identically. Which sex was intentionally discriminated against?"
Sources:
theepochtimes.com
wjla.com
city-journal.org
Latest News