{"id":152,"date":"2026-04-28T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=152"},"modified":"2026-04-28T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T12:00:00","slug":"roe-v-johnston-arizona-birth-certificate-transgender-stay-pending-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=152","title":{"rendered":"Roe v. Johnston \u2014 Ninth Circuit stays Arizona injunction that had struck the word ‘operation’ from state birth-certificate-amendment law for transgender residents"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Roe v. Petersen<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-28<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
25-6980<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Stay pending appeal; Nken v. Holder<\/em> factors; Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-337(A)(3); birth certificate amendments; transgender plaintiffs; equal protection; due process; permanent injunction<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

A class of transgender Arizona residents, represented by minors and their parents, sued Arizona’s State Registrar of Vital Records and the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). They challenged Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-337(A)(3), which requires the registrar to amend a birth certificate only after receiving verification that the person seeking the amendment has undergone a “sex change operation.” The plaintiffs argued that this surgical-verification requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause as applied to transgender people who have not had surgery.<\/p>\n

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on all claims. In September 2025, the court entered a permanent injunction striking the word “operation” from the statute and its implementing regulation, with the injunction’s effective date delayed until April 30, 2026. ADHS appealed and asked the Ninth Circuit for a stay pending appeal. The Speaker of the Arizona House and the President of the Arizona Senate also moved to intervene and appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

A two-judge panel (after a third judge recused) granted ADHS’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The order is brief and does not adjudicate the merits. Instead, it applies the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder<\/em>, 556 U.S. 418 (2009): (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the stay applicant; (3) substantial injury to other parties; and (4) public interest.<\/p>\n

The panel held that, weighing those factors and given the court’s interest in preserving the status quo while the merits are decided, a stay pending appeal was warranted. The district court’s permanent injunction (and the related order setting the April 30, 2026 effective date) was stayed until the court issues its decision on the appeal. The panel did not reach the constitutional issues; it simply held that the stay was appropriate to preserve the status quo.<\/p>\n

Oral argument on the merits was held on April 14, 2026, and the panel said its decision on the merits will issue in due course.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n