Judges on the 11th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals overturned a 2021 ruling by Middle District of Alabama U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson that declared Alabama’s transgender driver’s license policy unconstitutional.
Thompson ruled in 2021 that Policy Order 63, Alabama’s driver's license policy for transgenders, violated the Equal Protection Clause.
"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," Thompson wrote in his 2021 opinion.
The 11th Circuit reversed that decision on Friday.
“We welcome the Eleventh Circuit’s decision. The Constitution does not forbid a State from relying on biological sex, rather than novel gender theories, when issuing drivers’ licenses,” William Califf, a spokesman for Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, told 1819 News on Friday.
The 11th Circuit Judges noted “Policy Order 63” permits “an individual wishing to have the sex changed on their Alabama driver[’s] license due to gender reassignment surgery” to change their sex by submitting certain documentation.
A transgender individual must submit a letter from the physician who performed the reassignment procedure, or else an amended birth certificate reflecting a changed sex designation.
Plaintiffs in the case were transgender residents of Alabama who sought to change the sex on their driver’s licenses without undergoing sex-change surgery. They argued that Policy Order 63 violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment, as well as the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment.
The 11th Circuit Judges said the 2021 ruling by Thompson was an error.
“After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that decision was error. Policy Order 63 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it does not impose a sex-based classification—the Policy Order does not single out or disadvantage anyone because of their sex, or regulate based on stereotypes; rather, it imposes the same objective conditions on everyone. Our recent decision in Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Alabama, 80 F.4th 1205, 1228 (11th Cir. 2023), confirms as much, and it controls the analysis here. That case establishes that rational basis review—the most deferential standard under the Equal Protection Clause—applies,” The 11th Circuit Judges wrote. “Policy Order 63 survives that review because it rationally advances Alabama’s legitimate interest in providing a consistent set of requirements to amend the sex listed on state documents like driver’s licenses and birth certificates. We also consider and reject Plaintiffs’ due process and First Amendment challenges. Because Policy Order 63 deals only with when and how the State will revise information on state documents, Policy Order 63 neither violates Plaintiffs’ right to informational privacy, nor infringes their right to refuse medical care like sex-change surgery, under our due process precedents. For similar reasons, Policy Order 63 does not compel Plaintiffs to speak the government’s message about their sex or gender identity in violation of the First Amendment—after all, driver’s licenses are government speech, not private speech.”
202110486 by Caleb Taylor on Scribd
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email caleb.taylor@1819News.com.
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
