Summary
The Ninth Circuit granted the Arizona Department of Health Services Director’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The stay suspends the district court’s permanent injunction concerning Arizona’s birth-certificate amendment statute, which requires verification of a “sex change operation,” pending resolution of the merits appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's permanent injunction should be stayed pending resolution of the appeal on the merits.
- Whether preserving the status quo while the merits appeal is decided warranted a stay under the Nken factors.
Holdings
- A stay pending appeal is warranted, and the district court's orders entering the permanent injunction and making it effective on April 30, 2026, are stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
Key quotations
“In light of the stay factors and our interest in preserving the status quo while we decide the merits of this appeal, the motion for a stay pending appeal is granted.” (7)
“The district court’s orders entering a permanent injunction, Dist. Ct. Dkt. 310, and making the injunction effective on April 30, 2026, Dist. Ct. Dkt. 353, are stayed pending resolution of this appeal.” (7)
Factual background
Arizona law requires the registrar to amend a birth certificate upon verification that the person seeking amendment has undergone a "sex change operation." A class of transgender people who had not undergone such an operation challenged the law as violating equal protection and due process. The district court entered a permanent injunction striking the word "operation" from the statute and its implementing regulation, with the injunction scheduled to take effect on April 30, 2026.
Procedural history
A class of transgender people in Arizona sued the Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, alleging that Arizona's birth-certificate amendment law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on all claims and later entered a permanent injunction striking the word "operation" from the statute and implementing regulation, while delaying the injunction's effective date. The Director timely appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal; proposed intervenor-defendants Warren Petersen and Steve Montenegro also appealed as movants.