286 F.Supp.3d 1131
D. Idaho2018Background
- Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) interpreted state vital-statistics law to categorically deny requests by transgender persons to change the sex listed on Idaho birth certificates unless an error at birth could be shown.
- Plaintiffs F.V. and Dani Martin are transgender women born in Idaho who have transitioned socially and medically in other records but were denied changes to the sex on their birth certificates. They sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violations of Equal Protection, Due Process, and the First Amendment.
- Defendants conceded the policy is unconstitutional under rational-basis review and stated they would promulgate a new rule permitting changes once the Court ordered them to do so; they asked the Court to decide only on the narrow equal-protection rational-basis ground.
- The court declined to address Plaintiffs’ Due Process and First Amendment claims because the Equal Protection claim presented a controlling and more accurate legal framework and Defendants’ concession removed the compelled-speech concern.
- The court held IDHW’s categorical policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, permanently enjoined IDHW from automatically rejecting such applications, and ordered IDHW to accept and consider applications by April 6, 2018, with any approved reissued certificates omitting revision history of sex or name changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDHW’s categorical denial of sex-marker changes violates Equal Protection | Denial treats transgender people differently without adequate justification; heightened scrutiny should apply (sex- or quasi-suspect class) and policy fails intermediate scrutiny | Conceded no rational basis supports categorical ban; asked Court to resolve under rational-basis review only | Court found no rational basis; policy unconstitutional under Equal Protection and enjoined enforcement; directed IDHW to accept applications and issue unmarked amended certificates when approved |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny for transgender classifications | Plaintiffs urged at least intermediate scrutiny (sex-based or quasi-suspect class) | Defendants did not defend policy and urged narrow rational-basis resolution | Court agreed remedy should withstand heightened scrutiny and discussed reasons why transgender status merits heightened scrutiny, but ruled on rational-basis failure given defendant concession |
| Whether reissued certificates may include revision history (compelled speech concern) | Including revision history would impermissibly force disclosure of transgender status | Defendants agreed new rule would omit revision history once ordered | Court ordered that approved reissued certificates must not show amendment history for sex or name changes to avoid compelled disclosure |
| Scope and remedy: injunction and rulemaking | Plaintiffs sought declaration, injunction, and guidance that rule comply with constitutional protections | Defendants requested narrow ruling and time to develop rule after court order | Court permanently enjoined policy, ordered IDHW to accept applications and promulgate a constitutionally sound process by specified date, and prohibited marking amendments on reissued certificates |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standard and purpose)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidence required to avoid summary judgment)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (Equal Protection requires similar treatment of similarly situated persons)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (tiers of scrutiny in Equal Protection review)
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (sex discrimination includes failure to conform to gender norms)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (rational-basis limits where law reflects animus)
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (framework for identifying quasi-suspect classes)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (Due Process and Equal Protection can overlap in defining rights)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (standards for permanent injunctions)