Utah Supreme Court rules transgender people can change name, gender on birth certificates

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — The Utah Supreme Court Thursday ruled in favor for transgender people who want to change their names and genders on Utah birth certificates.

The two appellants for the case are both transgender.

The court said in it's 128-page ruling: Sean Childers-Gray is "a transgender man who was assigned female at birth. He lives 100% as a male and holds himself out as a male to his family, friends, and the public. He was diagnosed with gender identity disorder and underwent hormone therapy to change his physical appearance. At the time of his petition, he had been treated with hormone therapy for more than three years."

Angie Rice is "a transgender woman who was assigned male at birth. She lives 100% as a female and holds herself out as a female to her family, friends, and the public. She was diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and at the time of her petition‘s filing, she had been treated with hormone therapy for five years to change her physical appearance," the court said.

Attorney Chris Wharton, who represented Childers-Gray and Rice, said:

We are grateful that our clients’ right to live as their authentic selves has been upheld by the court.” stated , “While the decision was a long time coming, there is nothing radical about the outcome—the right to be treated equally regardless of which county or judicial district you are in.”

This day is about Angie and Sean, but will also have profound significance on transgender Utahns. The case has been under advisement by the Utah Supreme Court for almost 3.5 years. Notably, there was no opposing party, and no challenge to existing Utah law. The case only challenges the district judge’s erroneous rulings. The Utah Attorney General's Office was ordered to file an amicus brief and essentially agreed with Angie and Sean on the merits (the state's first published opinion supporting transgender rights).

Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams stated, “It has been an unprecedented year for transgender Americans. Over 30 states introduced legislation to restrict the freedom of transgender youth. But here in Utah, we chart a different path. The Utah Legislature rejected two anti-transgender bills, and today, the Utah Supreme Court has upheld transgender rights to live freely as their authentic selves. This is ‘equality under the law’ in practice, right here in Utah.”

TEA of Utah executive director Candice Metzler stated, “Today, the State of Utah has taken a step closer to that ideal of ‘becoming a more perfect Union.’ We have chosen to create a system that actually serves all who use it. We have chosen the health of our community by sending a clear message that transgender, intersex, and gender-diverse people have a place in our communities and state. This decision will go a long way in helping such people know they belong.”

In the court's opinion section of the ruling, in the "cases before us" section, the court stated:

"These cases should be remanded with instructions to grant the petitions for sex change without any further hearing for three reasons:

• First, in both cases, the district court granted appellants‘ petitions for name change, finding no wrongful or fraudulent purpose.'
• Second, the petitioners here complied with the objective medical standard that we describe above. Both petitioners provided letters from a doctor "stating that each of them had been treated for Gender [Dysphoria] and undergone 'the appropriate clinical treatment‘ for the gender transition." The doctors‘ letters complied with the Social Security Administration standard we detailed above. In Ms. Rice‘s case, the district court declined to make findings on these issues but noted that two licensed physicians diagnosed and treated her for 'Gender Dysphoria' in accordance with relevant medical standards.
• Third, the district court‘s orders were based on a legal mistake. In Ms. Rice‘s case, the court only proffered its view that 'the procedure for obtaining a sex/gender marker change must be set forth by the legislature and the Court is prohibited from invading the legislature‘s prerogative on this issue. Thus, the request to change Petitioner‘s legal sex/gender marker is not a properly justiciable question.' But its denial of Mr. Childers-Gray‘s petition, issued eight days before that, revealed '[u]nsupported generalizations' and concerns—considerations that our case law strictly prohibits. The court proclaimed that '[r]egardless of the sincerity or the intensity of the desire of any individual to display any particular physical appearance, some biological facts are not subject to voluntary modification.' The court then continued on what we can generously describe as a page of hypotheticals and slipperyslope arguments with no factual basis."

Consequently, we hold that appellants have met the requirements we outlined above and that their petitions for sex change should be granted."

In the conclusion, the court wrote:

The adjudication of sex-change petitions lies squarely within the power granted to Utah courts by the Utah Constitution. Our district courts have the authority to adjudicate such petitions without any constitutional impediment. In order to prevail on such a petition, a petitioner must: (1) show the petition is not made for any wrongful or fraudulent purpose, and (2) include objective evidence about the sex change reflecting the petitioner‘s identity, at minimum, in the form of evidence of appropriate clinical care or treatment for gender transitioning or change, provided by a licensed medical professional. Mr. Childers-Gray and Ms. Rice have met these requirements. Therefore, we reverse and remand this case with instructions to enter orders granting their sex-change petitions."

In the dissenting section, written by Justice Thomas Lee wrote:

Since 1975 our Utah law has provided for the issuance of a court order for amendment of the designation of a person‘s 'sex' on a birth certificate. This is a plain reference to biological sex. It is not an invitation for judicial development of an evolved standard of 'gender identity.'

The majority‘s new standard provides for a birth certificate amendment upon a showing of any care or treatment for gender transitioning or change. This was not the law enacted by our legislature in 1975. And it is not the law this court should be adopting—least of all in a case in which we lack adversary input from any adversary party.

The legislature can certainly 'override' our decision if it disagrees. But that is no reason for us to step in to do the legislature‘s job of amending or updating its laws. And it surely is no justification for our court‘s decision to override decades and even centuries of precedent on the core limits on our judicial power.

The legislature has no power to undo that decision. In a system that gives our court the final say on constitutional questions, we ourselves bear the responsibility to interpret and abide by the limits on our constitutional power. We should hold those limits sacred. We will rue the day that we cast them aside."