786 F.Supp.3d 453
D.P.R.2025Background
- Six nonbinary individuals born in Puerto Rico challenged the Commonwealth's Birth Certificate Policy under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Since 2018, Puerto Rico allowed transgender individuals to change the gender marker on their birth certificates from male to female or female to male but did not allow a nonbinary option.
- Plaintiffs sought an order requiring the Demographic Registry to provide a third gender marker, “X,” on birth certificates, consistent with their gender identity.
- Defendants argued such a change required legislative approval and cited interests in maintaining the integrity of vital records.
- The parties agreed there were no disputed material facts, proceeding on cross motions for summary judgment.
- The court found Puerto Rico already had protocols to preserve original birth records and that at least seventeen states and the federal government recognized nonbinary gender markers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of nonbinary marker on birth certificates | Policy illegally denies nonbinary persons equal protection. | Nonbinary option requires new legislation; state's interest prevails | NO rational basis for distinguishing between binary & nonbinary individuals; Policy unconstitutional |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny under Equal Protection | Policy discriminates based on sex/gender identity, needing heightened scrutiny | Only rational basis review applies; no quasi-suspect class status | Level of scrutiny undecided; policy fails even rational basis review |
| Integrity of Records | Protocols already exist to preserve original records safely. | Changing records would compromise statistics, record integrity | Existing processes suffice; denying "X" not rational to state's interest |
| Judicial vs. legislative role | Courts must remedy constitutional violations regardless of legislation | Only legislature can create new gender categories | Judicial review proper under Marbury; legislative argument unpersuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (classification must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (animus toward a group is not a rational basis for government action)
- United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (sex-based discrimination requires intermediate scrutiny)
- F.C.C. v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (rational basis review in statutory classifications)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (moral disapproval is not a legitimate state interest)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (judicial review of constitutionality of government action)
- Fisher v. Univ. of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (strict scrutiny for suspect classifications)
- Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (sex-based classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny)