The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
No Clearly Established Right Not to Have Gov't Disclose Your Gender Identity to Your Spouse (+ Some Others)
From Judge Damon Leichty's opinion Tuesday in Doe v. Gray (N.D. Ind.), combined with an earlier opinion (to which the new one refers):
John Doe, born female and transitioning to male, says Detective Adam Gray of the Starke County Sheriff's Department disclosed John Doe's gender identity to A.B., his [wife] who was allegedly unaware of it. John Doe also claims that Detective Gray shared this information with Katherine Purtee, a family case law manager at the Indiana Department of Child Services, who thereafter disclosed the information to A.B.'s children….
Officials are shielded [by qualified immunity] from civil liability "'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … The concept of ordered liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause has been interpreted to include "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Whalen v. Roe (1977). Courts of appeals, including this circuit, "have interpreted Whalen to recognize a constitutional right to the privacy of medical, sexual, financial, and perhaps other categories of highly personal information—information that most people are reluctant to disclose to strangers—and have held that the right is defeasible only upon proof of a strong public interest in access to or dissemination of the information." …
John Doe does not cite to any closely analogous cases to show that a Fourteenth Amendment right to keep his … gender identity private from disclosure to his spouse, his spouse's children, or foster parents by state authorities was clearly established…. Knowledge that the disclosure of medical information in some circumstances might be unconstitutional is simply not enough to show that Detective Gray and Case Manager Purtee would know, or should have known, that what they disclosed to these individuals under these circumstances was unconstitutional…. John Doe and A.B. have not met their burden to prove that existing precedent placed the constitutional question beyond debate. Detective Gray and Case Manager Purtee are accordingly entitled to qualified immunity.
Here's the backstory behind the incident, which stemmed from an arrest of Doe and Doe's wife, A.B., and which apparently explains how Detective Gray learned of Doe's gender identity:
John Doe and A.B.'s claims arise from their February 7, 2018 arrests for neglect of a dependent and non-support of a child and the subsequent investigation. John Doe is a transgender male who was born female. John Doe and A.B. are married. On February 1, 2018, Detective Gray and Case Manager Purtee interviewed R.M. [age 17] after notification that A.B. (his biological mother) and John Doe (his stepfather who is neither R.M.'s biological nor adoptive parent) abandoned him.
During this interview, R.M. disclosed that A.B. and John Doe kicked R.M. out of their home because R.M. knew his sister snuck out one evening. John Doe told him not to come home in a phone call. This is not the first time John Doe and A.B. kicked R.M. out of the house. R.M. stayed at the home of Suzanne Brewer from January 22, 2018 until after John Doe and A.B.'s arrests on February 7, 2018…. R.M. told Detective Gray and Case Manager Purtee that he did not get along with John Doe because he knew things about John Doe that John Doe wanted to be kept secret and R.M. believed John Doe was molesting R.M.'s sisters…. [At a later interview,] R.M. spoke more about his knowledge of John Doe's previous name, biological sex, and his concerns about John Doe abusing his sisters….
After John Doe and A.B.'s arrests, Case Manager Purtee took custody of the three minor children. Case Manager Purtee contacted April Moore, A.B.'s sister, to inquire about custody when Case Manager Purtee allegedly stated "you know she is a girl right?"—or, at least as plaintiffs allege, she disclosed John Doe's "[gender identity]." Ms. Moore had no prior knowledge of John Doe's … gender identity. Case Manager Purtee dropped off two children to Tracy Patrick, a foster parent, and disclosed John Doe's [gender identity] to her. While visiting R.M. and J.M. (A.B.'s daughter) at Ms. Brewer's house, Case Manager Purtee also allegedly disclosed John Doe's [gender identity] to J.M. and Ms. Brewer.
On February 8, 2018, Detective Gray interviewed A.B. to investigate the circumstances of R.M.'s prolonged stay at Ms. Brewer's house and R.M.'s allegation of sexual assault. During Detective Gray's interview with A.B., he stated John Doe was born Barbara B., he was born female, and did not have male genitalia—or, as John Doe and A.B. allege, Detective Gray disclosed John Doe's [gender identity]. A.B. told Detective Gray that she did not know John Doe did not have male genitalia but was aware of his previous name and that "medically down there like it's different." …
The court concluded there was probable cause for the arrest:
Based on this record, Detective Gray knew (1) R.M. had previously been kicked out of the house by his parents; (2) R.M. got in trouble and was told on the phone by John Doe to not come home; (3) John Doe told R.M. that he had not changed and should continue staying at Ms. Brewer's house; (4) John Doe told R.M. to retrieve his stuff from their home; (5) A.B. said whatever John Doe said goes; (5) John Doe and A.B. never provided financial support to R.M. or Ms. Brewer, and dropped food off once; (6) A.B. told R.M. to come home and get on the couch because he was grounded; (6) R.M. was living at Ms. Brewer's house from January 22, 2018 to February 7, 2018; and (7) Ms. Brewer confirmed a majority of the facts R.M. disclosed. The totality of the circumstances … proves sufficient to warrant a prudent officer in believing that John Doe and A.B. had committed or were committing neglect of a dependent and non-support of a child….
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s almost as if the court’s decision as to the definition of the alleged right can make or break anyone’s case…
Yes, the level of generality at which the right in question is defined is critical to qualified immunity analysis.
John Doe should be arrested for rape by deception, as should all trans people not disclosing their birth genders.
Wasn’t there some arrest of the plaintiff? Isn’t the police blotter published in the newspaper? Can the police lie about the real gender on the blotter?
This isn’t a joke. There was a case of a guy who went into his friend’s house and had sex with his GF, who thought he was her boyfriend. Rape by deception.
Then there’s the “problematic” scene in Revenge of the Nerds where a nerd in a Vader mask, umm, lifts the mask and performs on a cheerleader (nasty lead and gf of nasty male bad boy lead) similarly.
I guess we need to track the drumbeat of severity and can a lawyer sue for a downpayment on a yacht, before deciding which is a noble right and which is rape by deception.
“A.B. told Detective Gray that she did not know John Doe did not have male genitalia but was aware of his previous name and that ‘medically down there like it’s different.'”
One wonders how John Doe kept that information from his wife. How long had they been married?
Apparently A. B. was utterly clueless about the implications of her husband previously having had a female name, and having “different” stuff down there. I say “apparently” because this reads like a bad joke. Maybe A. B. isn’t all that bright? Or was just being sarcastic with Detective Gray?
That is the question that I have. Presuming that the marriage was consummated at some point, this is not something that could be readily hidden.
I see this as a either an activist trying to make a name for themselves or them trying to get rich off a settlement. Either way, the situation seems to be absurd on its face.
I could see the equivocation of some sort of childhood trauma being passed of for an explanation there. Not wholly untrue from the trans perspective but designed to be interpreted as something it is not from any other starting point.
Might have been a lot of oral and vague references to medical issues in ways that mislead the wife to believe it’s ED. Wouldn’t happen to someone with street smarts, but could definitely happen to the confrontational avoident types.
She was also aware her spouse had formerly been named “Barbara”; Takes more than a lack of street smarts to not put 2 and 2 together given that.
I think she was just being sarcastic with the Detective, and knew.
Now that “Law & Order” has been revived; I expect that we’ll be seeing some version of this case in the following season.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
It just blows me away how close we’ve gotten already to a ‘right’ to defraud your intended spouse about your sex. As though it weren’t anything a potential spouse would be entitled to know.
Although in the present case it’s less a matter of fraud than maybe marrying somebody who was really, really clueless.
Out of curiosity, do you think a potential spouse would generally be entitled to know about someone’s medical history?
Also, why do you think it should be up to the government to decide what a (potential) spouse is entitled to know?
Medical history? This is about a cop getting sued for telling a lady that her husband is a woman.
Now, back during the gay rights push I was skeptical that being gay would become mandatory, but it’s getting awfully close.
Non sequitur. What does this have to do with being gay becoming mandatory?
Gays have sex with members of the same sex. Keeping potential sex partners in the dark about your actual sex tricks them into having sex with the same sex. It’s not, of course, the same as being “gay”, probably should be considered a form of statutory rape, though.
Again, what does that have to do with being gay becoming mandatory, as TwelveInchPianist posited?
Non sequitur. What does this have to do with being gay becoming mandatory?
About as much as knowing your spouse’s gender has to do with knowing their medical history.
She did know her spouse’s gender. He’s a man. That’s not in dispute.
She did know her spouse’s gender. He’s a man. That’s not in dispute.
I knew the moment I typed “gender” instead of “sex” you pounce on the opportunity to use pedantry to distract attention from the idiocy of your medical history comment.
Clearly, as also evidenced below, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Maybe stop commenting for a bit?
You really suck at the dishonest rhetoric schtick.
She’s a woman. You can tell because she doesn’t have a dick.
Well, most of us can. Maybe not her wife.
That’s an assumption you’re making, right? Having had what is called “bottom surgery” to construct a penis is something some female-to-male transexual people choose to do. He may have a penis.
That’s an assumption you’re making, right? Having had what is called “bottom surgery” to construct a penis is something some female-to-male transexual people choose to do. He may have a penis.
Try again when you learn the difference between “has” and “does not have”.
Why, yes, and in this case obviously so.
Two reasons.
1) A rather large proportion of people marry intending to have children. Failing to disclose your inability to take part in that is serious deception.
2) A rather large proportion of people, known as “heterosexuals”, really don’t mean to marry people of the same sex. Is tricking them into doing so really a right?
Seriously, anybody who would contemplate entering a marriage while keeping this sort of thing secret from their proposed spouse is morally unfit, and the government has no duty to avoid exposing this sort of fraud.
It’s a fair enough view to hold, I was genuinely asking.
As for the specifics of this case:
1) Given that AB has a 17-year old kid, I suspect she’s at an age where additional kids aren’t really the intention anymore.
2) John Doe is a man, and if AB can’t tell the difference between him and any other man, I’m not sure how here (assumed) heterosexuality has anything to do with anything.
As I commented above, A.B. was either pretty clueless, or already knew, and was being sarcastic with the Detective. I lean towards the latter conclusion. The lawsuit seems to have been more directed at the disclosure to the children.
I think there are two questions that need to not be conflated here.
Should people be honest with their prospective spouses about their medical history, their gender, their finances, any past criminal history, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Yes, of course. However, in point of fact, people keep all kinds of secrets from their spouses, sometimes for good reason and sometimes for bad reason. Which then takes us to the second question:
Does the state have an obligation to help a spouse keep a secret? Framed that way, the answer appears to me to be an obvious no.
I can see limited situations where such an obligation could exist, such as being in the witness protection program, or sealed juvenile records. But if such a statutory basis exists for concealing somebody’s sex, I’m unaware of it.
I think both are part of the same “right”: if A withholds, or lies about, information in order to get B’s agreement, that is fraud. Doesn’t matter whether it is having sex, getting married, buying a car, or anything else; it is fraud. I am something of an outlier in believing that fraud itself is not a crime; but when harm is attributable to that fraud, the harm is the crime and the fraud is the proof of intent.
Though religion doesn’t recognize gay marriage, this kind of thing would be grounds for an annulment in some other world.
Why would the government not regulate disclosure in marriage contracts as it does in so many other contractual settings? I had no idea that Martinned was such a strenuous defender of caveat emptor.
I didn’t realise that people who get married are “buying” anything. Is this that “buying the cow” thing that American conservatives are always on about when they’re trying to get people not to have sex?
But since you ask, I think marriage isn’t in any meaningful sense comparable to normal contract law, and that the government should generally respect people’s privacy.
Maybe things are different in Holland, but marriage is commonly referred to as a contractual relationship in US jurisprudence. It happens to be a contract almost all of the terms of which are unalterably prescribed by the State, which makes it strange to the point of logical contradiction that someone would suggest that the State can’t regulate it.
I didn’t realise that people who get married are “buying” anything.
You don’t realize a great many things that anyone with an IQ higher than that of a potato should understand. One of those things is that using quotation marks around a word implies that you’re…you know…quoting what someone has said. In this case nobody, except you, said anything about anyone “buying” anything, so your implying that they did is as dishonest as it is ignorant. Not all contracts involve “buying” something, and marriage in the U.S. is one such form of contractual arrangement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor
Posting an irrelevant link to something that you clearly don’t understand doesn’t make you look any less dumb. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Martnned,
I do think that, in general, a spouse should be entitled to know the intended’s medical history though I can imagine some limited exceptions.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Science.
Heavy things fall faster than light things.
Science.
(Just not current science. But Aristotle, so that counts.)
Longtobefree was relating current science, though.
Not according to most of the scientists in the relevant disciplines.
KryKry. In this subject, there is no evidence to support anything other than the truth of that saying. Most of the trans people undergoing transitioning have another traditional mental illness. For example, Jaz was on Zololft for depression. Gender dysphoria is a comorbidity in his case. In groups of people, surgery and full transition did not make people feel better and it doubled the suicide rate.
No one should be transitioned untill their underlying mental condition has been remedied. As one should not buy a house or car when manic, one should certainly not consent to permanent body change by surgery. Any surgeon operating on a still symptomatic person is unethical and dangerous (the known higher risk of suicide). Such doctors should lose their licenses until they have taken a course on informed consent.
You’re obviously unfamiliar with how the process actually works. Anti-trans activists spread this meme about ten year olds having sex change surgery on a whim. In reality, precisely because it is life changing, nobody gets surgery unless they’ve had extensive counseling over an extended period of time. As with any other major life decision I’m sure there are some people who regret it later, but if not allowing people to do things they might regret later were the standard it would be illegal to marry or go to law school.
And the issue with puberty blockers is that they only work if they are taken before puberty, so it’s not a situation in which you can tell them to wait until they’re 18. But again, you don’t get them without some fairly rigorous counseling first.
Does this counseling include an assessment to assure the restoration to normalcy for the other traditional mental problems, like depression, in the case of Jaz?
KryKry. I believe I have no legs. The belief is sincere, as I have lived legless for several years. I am using a wheelchair. I installed hand controls on my car. I go to a surgeon to amputate both my healthy legs at the thighs. Counseling has not changed my feelings.
I tell the surgeon, doc, if you do not do it properly, I will do it myself, the rough way. I may die of bleeding if I fail to control it fast, as he could.
What do you think of a surgeon who goes along with that request? What if the person is a child, or a teen over 14?
Look further into this condition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria
KryKry. In your opinion, which is more drastic? Amputation or a sex change?
I didn’t respond earlier because I wanted some time to think about it. Having thought about it, I don’t think the two are comparable because gender and sexuality are far more tied to a person’s core identity and self identification than having two legs. I’ll bet you think about things that relate to gender and sexuality a lot more often than you think about having two legs. And if someone asked you to list five things about yourself, I’ll bet “I’m male” would make the cut but “I have two legs” would not. Plus there’s this whole thing with cultural expectations surrounding gender roles and what it actually means to be male or female or both or neither that doesn’t apply to how many legs you have.
All that said, if an adult wants to have a leg amputated and can find a doctor willing to do it, I would not be inclined to tell him he can’t. I wouldn’t force a doctor to do the surgery, but then again I wouldn’t force a doctor to do sex-change surgery either.
And if someone asked you to list five things about yourself, I’ll bet “I’m male” would make the cut but “I have two legs” would not.
Try asking that same question of someone who doesn’t have two legs…or even one.
But I’m asking the question of a person who has two legs. Such a person probably never thinks about having two legs; I don’t know that I ever had before this discussion. If whatever you are happens to be what just about everyone else is too, you never think about it.
Wuz, as a person who is crippled. After a couple years, you stop thinking about what you physically lack with any regular frequency. In the same way you don’t think about what color your walls are 99% of the time. Unless something comes up that is particularly out of the norm inconvenient, it’s just part of life not worth much thought.
KryKry. Do you agree the person demanding the amputation needs mental help before through with amputation off the street? The people with Body Identity Disorder are as adamant about their feelings as trans people are about theirs. The woke are encouraging them to do it because of their hatred of America. That is not right.
Certainly, a child should not be put through any change, not amputation not sex change. Both are delusional ideas and false. I went from wanting to be a pilot to police officer to whatever glamorous occupation I read about in 4th grade. How is a trans kid any different.
OK. KryKry. I strongly identify with being rich. You woke people need to respect me by sending me money to fulfill my sincere feeling. Eugene has my email address for your payment app. I expect everyone here to respect my identified reality and to send me $1000 to fultill it.
Wuz, as a person who is crippled.
And unable to form a complete sentence, apparently.
After a couple years, you stop thinking about what you physically lack with any regular frequency.
Unless you’re just sitting around being sedentary all day, what you physically lack is something that must be dealt with on a regular daily basis. While you can certainly be just as active and productive as the average human being, the fact is that you require additional effort, special equipment, etc in order to do so. So while the absence of the use of two legs might not be something that’s always…or even usually…on your mind, it’s certainly something that is a very, very important part of who you are and how you live your life.
The other issue with puberty blockers is that they don’t just delay puberty. If that was all they did, that would be great, society would probably be much better off if puberty were later in life.
They have medical side effects, such as lowered bone density, and dental problems, that show up later in life.
Wow, you actually buy that?
The only difference between a depression and gender dysphoria diagnosis is that one patient says he’s depressed because of his gender. And if he’s convinced that transition is the only option, it’s no surprise that traditional therapy won’t be successful.
“Sorry, doc, I’ve tried super hard to do all the things that would make me getting the thing I want the most unnecessary. I guess you have to make me a woman now.”
Like I was saying about anti-trans people spreading phony memes . . .
The listed diagnostic criteria of the DSM is not a phony meme.
Truisms of human behavior are not phony memes.
I’m not anti-trans. Adults can mutilate themselves if they desire. I’m just not so gullible to believe that the indescribable “feeling like the opposite sex” is a discrete sensation rather than the manifestation of an underlying mental problem.
And you’re not going to find a doctor to sign off on surgery, or puberty blockers, without significantly more than some indescribable feeling like the opposite sex.
But be that as it may, the question then is this: What other indescribable feelings for which there is no objective proof are open to challenge based on majority prejudice? Religion pretty much consists of indescribable feelings. So do romantic feelings toward anyone. So does patriotism. So does a preference for filet mignon over dogshit. If you’re going to dismiss other people’s “indescribable feelings” with a wave of your hand, be careful; probably 80% of what you yourself hold most dear in your life comes down to little more than the same thing.
Just like you’re not going to find a doctor to sign off on an elective 3rd term abortion?
I honestly don’t get why liberals are all “diversity” this, and “diversity” that, and then suddenly claim but nobody would ever, EVER do THAT. Don’t liberals believe in diversity of ethics?
“What other indescribable feelings for which there is no objective proof are open to challenge based on majority prejudice? ”
Let’s try the not infrequent claim of paranoid schizophenics who claim that external beings control their behavior
Brett, ethics has less to do with it than the fear of being sued. You’ll probably find a doctor to sign off on a third trimester abortion because who is going to file a lawsuit later. With sex change operations, all it takes is one patient to change their mind later and file a lawsuit claiming they weren’t properly counseled. Which is one reason (there are others) that doctors will not do that surgery without lots of documentation that the patient was adequately counselled.
You’ll probably find a doctor to sign off on a third trimester abortion because who is going to file a lawsuit later.
Gee, I don’t know…maybe the woman on whom the procedure was performed?
Most women who have third trimester abortions have spent so much time and trouble finding a doctor who’ll do it that they’re not likely to change their minds later.
“But be that as it may, the question then is this: What other indescribable feelings for which there is no objective proof are open to challenge based on majority prejudice?”
None, because all them are basic to the human condition. Anger is difficult to describe precisely, but it is universally understood. So is
pride in familial or tribal association. Even homosexuality as a concept is understandable to heterosexuals because they understand sexual attraction. And many of what you call “indescribable” feelings have detectable manifestations.
Not so with gender dysphoria. “Feeling like” the opposite sex is as meaningless as “feeling like” a coffee cup. It has no manifestation other than the person claims to have it. And if it were an intrinsic, physiological sensation experienced by some people, it would not be satisfied by adopting culturally specific gender characteristics like clothing or pronouns that have no physiological significance.
Asserting that you have a true “gender identity” is very much like proclaiming a faith. Believe it if you want, but don’t demand I participate and don’t impress it upon kids if the price of belief is irreversible body damage.
Given sufficiently malleable constructs of “most” and “relevant.”
The relevant discipline is biology, not psychiatry.
Well, off the top of my head, one of the most vocal proponents of transgenderism is Professor PZ Myers of the Biology Department of the University of Minnesota. Most biologists understand that gender isn’t a binary, and that outliers are part of the relevant universe.
Outliers are also outliers. We don’t claim that humans aren’t bipedal just because people are rarely born with an odd number of legs.
But neither do we expect people born with an odd number of legs to live or act as if they’ve got two.
Yes, prosthetics do not exist in your proggy world.
That would go to the question of whether how many legs does a person have means only the ones he was born with, or includes prosthetics. But neither answer is relevant to the actual issue here.
The transgendered are outliers, and nobody is arguing to the contrary. For the overwhelming majority of the population sex and gender are one and the same, and sex is a binary. There is, however, a small subset of the population for whom that’s not true.
And to recognize that they are outliers doesn’t mean that we can’t also recognize that what applies to most people does not apply to them, and treat them accordingly.
“For the overwhelming majority of the population sex and gender are one and the same, and sex is a binary. There is, however, a small subset of the population for whom that’s not true.”
Yes, and the correct medical term for that very small subset (less than 0.5% of the population) is intersex, not transgender.
This refers to people born with ambiguous genitalia due to genetic or in-utero developmental issues.
That subset does not include biological males or females who believe that they should have been born the opposite sex.
Matthew, I think there’s more interlap between intersex and transgendered than you’re allowing. Someone who is transgendered believes their anatomical sex doesn’t match their gender.
Matthew, I think there’s more interlap between intersex and transgendered than you’re allowing. Someone who is transgendered believes their anatomical sex doesn’t match their gender.
As usual, you’re spouting nonsense. Someone believing their psychological gender does not match their physical biology has nothing to do with one being “intersex”, which describes an ambiguous (with regard to sex) physiological condition.
Wuz, go back and re-read my original comment. I was talking about both.
We seem to have settled into a routine in which you will give a paraphrase that is almost but not quite what I actually said.
We seem to have settled into a routine in which you will give a paraphrase that is almost but not quite what I actually said.
So we can add the meaning of “paraphrase” to the long list of things you’re ignorant of and/or are willing to lie about. I didn’t “paraphrase” anything. I copied and pasted your exact words, verbatim. That I didn’t quote an entire post does not constitute “paraphrasing”. And what you said in earlier posts has absolutely no bearing on the claim that there is “there’s more interlap between intersex and transgendered than you’re allowing” (again an exact quote of that part of your claim, no paraphrasing), as there is NO interlap between the two things, as they refer to completely different phenomenon.
“Matthew, I think there’s more interlap between intersex and transgendered than you’re allowing.”
You are mistaken. Intersex refers to physically ambiguous anatomy nothing more, nothing less.
Matthew, please re-read my original comment. It related to both.
“But neither do we expect people born with an odd number of legs to live or act as if they’ve got two.”
Right. And likewise we should not expect a girl who likes to ride dirtbikes and wear jeans, or who dubiously considers her thought processes to resemble those typically found in the opposite sex, or whatever, to pretend that she is a boy. It wouldn’t matter if the entire medical profession claimed otherwise in unison, she’s not a boy and never will be.
“Not according to most of the scientists in the relevant disciplines.”
Please link to an example of this vaunted scholarship which denies that men are men and women are women.
There is no such scholarship–but that’s because of the way you rephrased the issue.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Intersex persons are intersex.
Shouldn’t intersex persons get to exist as they were born and not be forced into a false binary to suit the needs of the narrow-minded?
“intersex persons”
Sure. What does that have to do with transgender? Nothing.
I didn’t rephrase, I kept the original phrasing of this subthread. It’s a tautology of course.
Shouldn’t intersex persons get to exist as they were born and not be forced into a false binary to suit the needs of the narrow-minded?
Another genius who wants to argue using terms he doesn’t know the meaning of.
So if I’m getting this right, the original complained claimed that the cops inappropriately disclosed Doe’s sexual preference. They tried to amend the complaint to claim that it was Doe’s gender identity that was disclosed, but what really disclosed was Doe’s biological sex (or sex assigned at birth, to use the bogus propaganda term).
Things get confusing when the terminology being used deliberately bears no real connection to the underlying reality, but is instead an attempt to deny it.
He disclosed the absence of a penis.
Either the wife already knew, or the plaintiff was committing fraud.
This is a bullshit case that should not be the basis of case law.
Maybe he had an artificial penis that was good enough to fool the wife, which might be the case if the marriage was not intended to include sex, or at least certain kinds of sex.
Maybe I got lost in all the initials, but it seems the cop is being sued for telling the truth.
Yeah. Not so much to the spouse, who likely already knew, but to the children, who had been in the dark about it.
People get sued for disclosing truthful facts all the time. Why does that surprise you?
People get sued for disclosing truthful facts all the time.
Such civil actions are generally without basis unless there is some contractual obligation being violated, which was not the case here.
Well, that’s what this case was about. Whether there was a legal obligation that prevented disclosure. Contracts are just one way that legal obligations can be created.
Well, that’s what this case was about. Whether there was a legal obligation that prevented disclosure. Contracts are just one way that legal obligations can be created.
So when someone expressed surprise that someone was sued for disclosing factually true information in this case your response is that they shouldn’t be because of the existence of legal obligations that did not exist in this case.
Uh… does FERPA or HIPAA ring any bells? Niether of these are “contractual obligations” but are Federal Laws protecting certain types of private information.
Having had sexual reassignment surgery might fall under HIPAA.
Uh… does FERPA or HIPAA ring any bells? Niether of these are “contractual obligations” but are Federal Laws protecting certain types of private information.
Having had sexual reassignment surgery might fall under HIPAA.
You think a cop telling someone your real sex is covered under HIPAA? That’s not surprising given that you also think “intersex” and “transgender” are synonyms.
Maybe he thinks the cop also moonlights as a legal back-alley sex-reassignment surgeon?
It seems problematic for cops to be held liable for sharing truthful information.
Why? Back when it used to be my job to work for the government investigating things, I had a general statutory (and contractual) obligation to keep all sorts of truthful information to myself. The wrong kind of blabbing could have (theoretically) landed me in prison.
As mandated by employer or contract, incluing government secret work, sure.
As a claim unsupported by clear law created after the point the new concept developed? Hmmmmm…
Why? Back when it used to be my job to work for the government investigating things, I had a general statutory (and contractual) obligation to keep all sorts of truthful information to myself.
You keep making these idiotic comparisons between this case and things that bear no resemblance to it. Tell us what you think is the basis for a legal obligation to not disclose the information in question in this case.
O, I think the case is probably correctly decided as a matter of US law. But that doesn’t change the fact that in the US law enforcement have all sorts of obligations not to disclose truthful information that the come across in the course of their investigations, exactly because they often have powers to require people to provide documents, etc. So contrary to Bubba Jones’s comment, there is nothing “problematic” about the concept of holding law enforcement liable for disclosing truthful information.
More accurately, the cop in question was sued for disclosing information in the absence of any legal obligation to not do so, which is what makes it “problematic”. You’re just being pedantic here.
So you’re saying that it’s “problematic” when a defendant wins a civil suit?
So you’re saying…
More often than not this phrase precedes a clumsy attempt at a brain-dead straw man argument.
…that it’s “problematic” when a defendant wins a civil suit?
Yep, there it is.