RVA Mag

Richmond, VA Culture & Politics Since 2005

Menu

A Court Just Declared Alabama’s Transgender ID Law Unconstitutional

|

Topics: , , , , , , , ,

This court decision pushes Alabama one step closer to the modern age, whether they like it or not. (Sure enough, the state’s attorney general plans to appeal.)

Alabama is one of the eight remaining U.S. states that require transgender people to undergo gender-affirmation surgery before they can get a state-issued identification that lists their correct gender identity. But a federal court just ruled that requirement as unconstitutional.

The court ruling stems from a 2018 case involving three transgender state residents who were denied drivers’ licenses reflecting their gender identities because they hadn’t had “complete surgery,” a chest augmentation and a genital surgery, both of which can be time-consuming, expensive, and undesirable for some trans people.

“This policy makes it impossible for most transgender people in Alabama to obtain a license that they can use without sacrificing their privacy, safety, health, [and] autonomy,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote. The policy also puts trans people between a rock and a hard place because either they can undergo a costly and invasive set of surgeries, go without an ID altogether, or get a license showing an incorrect gender, putting them at high risk of harassment and violence.

On January 15, the U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama ruled that the state’s driver’s license policy for trans people violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it discriminates based on sex, according to NBC News.

“By making the content of people’s driver licenses depend on the nature of their genitalia, the policy classifies by sex; under Equal Protection Clause doctrine, it is subject to an intermediate form of heightened scrutiny,” Senior Judge Myron Thompson wrote in his decision.

While the state tried to assert that its policy furthers a compelling government interest by helping provide “information related to physical identification” to police and ensuring that state IDs remain consistent with birth certificates, the court ruled that the policy places an unnecessary burden on trans individuals.

While the court’s decision requires to the state to give the three plaintiffs in the case IDs reflecting their chosen gender identities, the state attorney general has pledged to appeal the decision.

Written by Daniel Villareal, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image via NCRM.

Federal Judge Overturns ObamaCare’s Transgender Protections, Because Jesus

|

Topics: , , , , , ,

The same judge who ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional has now ruled that religious freedom is more important than transgender people receiving medically necessary health care.

A U.S. District Court judge in Texas has overturned the protections written into ObamaCare for transgender people, ruling they violate the religious rights of healthcare providers who hold religious beliefs that oppose the existence of transgender people.

On Tuesday Judge Reed O’Connor, appointed by President George W. Bush, “vacated an Obama-era regulation that prohibited providers and insurers who receive federal money from denying treatment or coverage to anyone based on sex, gender identity, or termination of pregnancy,” The Hill reports.

That regulation also mandated healthcare providers perform medically necessary services for transgender patients.

O’Connor is known as the same federal judge who ruled the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional last year. According to The Hill, his ruling in this case is likely to be appealed.

The Trump administration is supporting a large group of Republican state attorneys general working to strip protections from people with pre-existing conditions, and ultimately, have ObamaCare voided by the courts.

Written by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement. Image via NCRM

Asking For Race On Marriage License Application Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

|

Topics: , , , , , , , ,

52 years after Loving v. Virginia, the Commonwealth was still requiring couples to state their race when seeking a marriage license. That’s why three Virginia couples filed suit against the state government.

Last month, Brandyn Churchill and Sophie Rogers, a Lexington couple planning to marry later this month, joined with two other Virginia couples to file suit against the circuit court clerks of two counties and the Virginia State Registar over a state law that requires people obtaining a marriage license to list their race. And last Friday, a US District Court Judge declared the law unconstitutional.

“Requiring Plaintiffs to disclose their race in order to receive marriage licenses burdens their fundamental right to marry,” wrote Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. in a ruling forbidding Virginia from enforcing the law. Alston ruled that the requirement violated Virginians’ right to due process under the 14th Amendment.

It has been 52 years since the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage — not only here in Virginia, but throughout the United States. Yet the Commonwealth is still dealing with racial issues pertaining to marriage.

After refusing to state their race on their marriage license application, Churchill and Rogers were denied a marriage license in Rockbridge County. The suit, which was filed by Alexandria civil rights lawyer Victor M. Glasberg, challenged the constitutionality of the law, stating that “The requirement reflects a regulatory scheme embodied in the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, originally called ‘An Act to Preserve the Integrity of the White Race.’ The requirement to identify by ‘race’ uses terms grounded in ignorance and bigotry, not in science.”

The Rockbridge County application listed 230 potential racial categories, several of which were outright racial slurs. These included Aryan, Hebrew, Islamic, Israelite, Jew, Mestizo, Mulatto, Nordic, Quadroon, Red, and Teutonic.

In response to the lawsuit filed by Glasberg and the three couples, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring released a legal opinion stating that couples can decline to answer any race-related questions when obtaining a marriage license. However, due to the current Virginia law, he stated that court clerks must still ask the question. 

Clerks Michelle Trout of Rockbridge and Paul Ferguson of Arlington, both of whom were named in the suit, pointed this out when the original issue was raised. They stated that, because it is a state law, they must comply with asking the question whether they agree with it or not. 

“It is my conclusion that [the law] does not require a clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license when the applicant declines to identify his or her race,” stated Herring, “and that clerks should issue a license regardless of an applicant’s answer or non-answer to that inquiry.”

In the wake of Herring’s statement, the Division of Vital Records revised their forms to make it clear that applicants may decline to answer race-related questions.

The race question was originally removed from Virginia marriage license applications by the General Assembly in 2003. However, it was reinstated in 2005, and has been on the applications ever since.

Glasberg was pleased at the case’s outcome. However, he found it unfortunate that the suit had to be brought in the first place. “We’re very pleased, of course,” he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “The only unfortunate part is that it took a United States district judge to strike a Jim Crow provision that the state of Virginia insisted on defending in court.”

Additional reporting by Marilyn Drew Necci. Photo: Brandyn Churchill and Sophie Rogers, via Facebook