Transgender Montanans Challenge New Law Preventing Accurate Information on Government Documents
MISSOULA, Mont. - Amelia Marquez, a transgender woman, and John Doe, a transgender man, filed a lawsuit today challenging a new law that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to correct the sex designation on their birth certificates. Marquez and Doe’s case asserts that Senate Bill 280 violates their constitutional right to privacy, equal protection of the law, and due process.
SB 280 requires a transgender person to receive a certified copy of an order from a court indicating that the sex of the person has been changed by “surgical procedure.” The court order must then be provided to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). For many transgender Montanans, surgical procedures are either unnecessary or cost-prohibitive.
Marquez, a lifetime resident of Montana, has known she was a woman for the majority of her adult life. While Marquez has undertaken hormone therapy and counseling, she cannot afford the surgery required by SB 280, nor does she want to undergo the surgery at this time. Marquez, like many transgender women, has dealt with harassment, discrimination, and violence, and regularly fears being targeted because of her identity. Having a birth certificate that does not match her gender identity puts her at higher risk of harassment, hostility, and discrimination.
“I would like to change the sex designation on my birth certificate to match my female gender identity, but am unable to do so because of the Act,” said Amelia Marquez. “My inability to obtain a birth certificate that accurately reflects my female gender identity is a painful and stigmatizing reminder of the State of Montana's refusal to recognize me as a woman. Further, denying me an accurate birth certificate places me at risk of embarrassment or even violence every time I am required to present my birth certificate, because it incorrectly identifies me as male.”
Doe, a 22-year-old man born in Gallatin County who currently resides outside of Montana, has known he is a man since his adolescence. Doe currently works two jobs while he waits to attend college in the fall. He would like to correct the gender designation on his birth certificate to accurately reflect his gender, but does not wish to be subject to the public humiliation and degradation of having to provide his deeply personal medical records and publicly out his transgender status.
Doe currently receives gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and counseling for gender dysphoria. In the spring of 2021, Doe underwent a gender-affirming surgery and does not intend to undergo additional surgeries that may be required by the new law in order to correct a birth certificate.
“The fear of having to produce his medical records in a public forum, forcing him to out himself as transgender, is unconscionable,” said Akilah Lane, ACLU-MT staff attorney. “In addition, requiring Mr. Doe to appear in court would result in significant emotional and financial burdens that are absolutely unnecessary. Mr. Doe, Ms. Marquez, and all Montanans who seek to correct the sex designation on their birth certificate should be able to without the undue burden created by this recent and inhumane law.”
“At a time when states all across the country are removing government red tape from the lives of transgender and non-binary people who want accurate identity documents, Montana has decided to increase government bureaucracy in people’s lives,” said John Knight, senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Courts and state lawmakers around the country have increasingly said that these barriers to accurate identity documents are unnecessary and serve no purpose for the government. Transgender and non-binary people need recognition of who they are and not permission from the government to live their lives.”
Before the passage of SB 280, transgender Montanans needed only to provide an affidavit to DPHHS to change the gender marker on a birth certificate. This process was efficient and easy and was administered without problem until the legislature decided to act.
The ACLU of Montana, the ACLU Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelović LGBTQ and HIV Project, and Nixon Peabody LLC represent Vazquez.
The lawsuit, Marquez and Doe v State, was filed in the 13th Judicial District, Yellowstone County.
Complaint: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/marquez-v-state-complaint
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
LGBTQ Rights
Marquez v. State of Montana
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.