CIVIL RIGHTS
Anti-LGBTQ Mississippi Law Prevails on Appeal Ruling on standing, not the merits, panel still suggests religious establishment objection wouldn’t fly BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD
A
three-judge panel of the Houston-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a preliminary injunction and dismissed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that protects people acting on anti-LGBTQ views from adverse action by state and local governments there. On June 30 of last year, US District Judge Carlton Reeves, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that H.B. 1523 violated their equal protection rights as well as the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion, issued a preliminary injunction. That kept the law from taking effect on July 1, 2016, as it was due to. Ruling last week, on June 22, the panel found that none of the plaintiffs had standing to bring a
challenge because, in the court’s opinion, none had suffered an individualized injury. The appellate panel was careful to state that, because the plaintiffs’ lack of standing deprived them of jurisdiction over the case, the three judges were not expressing an opinion about whether the law was constitutional. The plaintiffs’ attorneys from the two cases announced they would seek “en banc” review by the full Fifth Circuit bench and, failing that, would petition the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit is a notably conservative bench, however, with only four of the 14 active judges having been appointed by Democratic presidents. The three-judge panel that issued this decision consisted entirely of Republican appointees. H.B. 1523 specifically protects three “religious beliefs or moral
convictions” held by people for which they cannot suffer any “discriminatory” action by the state — including adverse tax rulings, benefits eligibility, employment decisions, imposition of fines, or denial of occupational licenses. Those beliefs are that “(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) male (man) or female (woman) refers to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” The law authorizes people with claims they have suffered adverse action based on their having one of those three beliefs to sue state officials. H.B. 1523 also specifically protects religious organizations in discriminating against LGBTQ people in employment, housing,
child placement, and marriages, and protects parents who decide to “raise their foster or adoptive children in accordance” with one of the three listed beliefs. Businesses that provide wedding services are protected against liability for denying such services to LGBTQ people, as are medical and mental health care providers, except in emergency medical situations (and a health care provider cannot interfere with visitation by a patient’s designated representative, who may be a same-sex partner or spouse). State agencies that license professionals may not refuse to license somebody because they hold or articulate one of the three listed antiLGBTQ beliefs. The statute also specifically protects “any entity that establishes sex-specific standards for facilities such as locker rooms or rest-
䉴
MISSISSIPPI, continued on p.32
Jersey Trans Teen Wins Name Change Case In case of first impression, Trevor Betts prevails over father’s initial objections BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD
I
n what the court characterized as a matter of “first impression in this state,” New Jersey Superior Court Judge Marcia Silva has granted a transgender teenager a change of name from Veronica to Trevor. “At the parties’ request,” Silva wrote, “this court has used the parties’ real names. It was also Trevor’s desire that his name be used in this opinion.” Though Silva decided the case on March 17, her opinion was not approved for publication until June 28. While this may have been the first such case among published court opinions in New Jersey, Trevor is not the first transgender minor to get a court-approved name change. Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy from Virginia whose lawsuit against his school district to gain appropri-
26
ate restroom access is still pending before the federal appeals court in Richmond even though he recently graduated from Gloucester County High School, received a legal name change, as have some other transgender teens involved in litigation against their schools. Trevor’s case was originally contested. His parents divorced in 2011 and have joint custody, though Trevor lives with his mother, Janet Sacklow. His father, Richard Betts, consented to Trevor beginning hormone treatments in 2014, first to suppress menstruation and then, in 2016, by using testosterone to begin masculinizing his body. Richard was opposed to the name change, however. Janet filed the petition seeking the name change on Trevor’s behalf on September 12, 2016, naming Richard as the defendant. He did not drop his opposition until after he
heard Trevor testify during a hearing on March 7. The biggest issue for Judge Silva was whether the court had any judgment to exercise in this case once the consent of both parents had been obtained. When an adult petitions for a name change, New Jersey law dictates that the court should grant the change unless there is some public interest in denying it, usually based on a finding it is being done to perpetrate a fraud on creditors or to avoid criminal prosecution. Unless one of those complicating factors is present, the court is normally not required to make any finding as to whether the name change is in the applicant’s best interest. Back in 1991, a New Jersey trial judge refused to grant a transgender adult’s petition for a name change, holding that “it is inherently fraudulent for a person who is physically a male to assume an obviously ‘female’
name for the sole purpose of representing himself to future employers and society as a female.” The Appellate Division reversed that ruling, stating that “a person has a right to a name change whether he or she has undergone or intends to undergo a sex change through surgery, has received hormonal injections to induce physical change, is a transvestite, or simply wants to change from a traditional ‘male’ first name to one traditionally ‘female’ or vice versa.” In short, where an adult is concerned, the court has limited discretion to deny a name change, and in New Jersey it has been established for more than a quarter-century that a name change to accord with gender identity is not deemed fraudulent as such. The issue for minors is different, Silva explained.
䉴
NAME CHANGE, continued on p.39
July 06–July 19, 2017 | GayCityNews.nyc