Hollister, 470 P.3d 436

Petitioner filed under ORS 33.460 to change legal sex from female to nonbinary and submitted the statutorily required attestation that they had undergone "surgical, hormonal, or other treatment appropriate *for the purpose of affirming gender identity."
Petitioner used the state court form that lists male, female, and nonbinary as possible sex designations and argued that requiring male/female forces false answers on many forms.
The Lane County circuit court denied the application, concluding ORS 33.460 permits only binary (male/female) sex changes and therefore could not grant a nonbinary designation.
Petitioner appealed; the appeal was unopposed and raised (but did not fully develop) as-applied First and Fourteenth Amendment and Oregon Constitution claims, which the Court of Appeals declined to decide as unnecessary.
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory text, context, legislative amendments (notably the 2017 amendment broadening the treatment requirement), and dictionary/technical definitions and concluded the statute requires the legal sex designation to affirm the applicant’s gender identity, which can be nonbinary.
The Court reversed and remanded, holding that ORS 33.460 authorizes a circuit court to change legal sex to a designation that affirms the applicant’s gender identity (male, female, or nonbinary) when the attestation requirement is met.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 33.460 permits a court to change legal sex to "nonbinary"	ORS 33.460 authorizes a sex change so long as the applicant attests to undergoing treatment affirming their gender identity; nonbinary is a gender identity the statute contemplates	The statute contemplates only binary sex designations (male/female); "sex" in the statute is limited to those categories	Reversed: statute is not limited to male/female; the court may order a sex designation that affirms the applicant's gender identity, including nonbinary when attestation satisfied
Whether court should decide petitioner’s constitutional challenges	Petitioner raised First/14th Amendment and Oregon Constitution claims as-applied	State defended the statute; argued statutory interpretation first	Court declined to reach constitutional claims as unnecessary after resolving statutory issue

PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (sets out methodology for statutory interpretation)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory construction principles and use of context)
State v. Cloutier, 351 Or. 68 (Or. 2011) (textual analysis and role of statutory context)
Kohring v. Ballad, 355 Or. 297 (Or. 2014) (use of dictionaries to ascertain ordinary meaning)
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 Or. 451 (Or. 2015) (caution about relying on dictionary definitions without context)