The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: October 25, 1795
10/25/1795: Justice John Blair resigns from the Supreme Court.

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
GID Act Sterilization Requirement Case (Grand Bench, decided October 25, 2023) - Article 3(1)(iv) of Act 2003-111, a provision requiring those seeking gender marker changes to be sterilized, is unconstitutional.
Plaintiff, a transgender woman, sought to change the gender marker on family registry under the Act without having a surgery first. The lower courts, citing 2019 decision of SCOJ upholding the provision, rejected the petition; the Supreme Court took this case to the Grand Bench, overruled the precedent, and invalidated the provision. A separate provision requires the person's genital appearance to be similar to those of the new gender; the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of this provision, instead remanding to the court below. (This provision mostly affects transgender woman; note that lower courts, in several cases, held this to be also invalid.) The plaintiff prevailed in the lower court and is now living, both socially and legally, as a woman.
Unanimous decision - something you'll probably never see in the United States.
Were there a law in the US requiring sterilization before one could change change the nominal sex in a government record, I feel confident that it would be declared unconstitutional unanimously: despite the progressive precedent of Buck vs Bell. But I doubt the occasion will arise.
But see Corbitt v. Taylor, case 21-10486 (11th Cir. 2024).
He should have sued the artist for that portrait.