LGBT Rights on the Docket

Ray et al. v. Himes et al.

Read the complaint in Ray et al. v. Himes et al.

Case Dates:
Thursday, 29 March, 2018 - ongoing

Ohio, Tennessee, and Puerto Rico are the only U.S. jurisdictions that do not allow transgender people to correct the gender marker on their birth certificates. A birth certificate is an identity document routinely used for many purposes. Ohio provides all other individuals born in the state with a birth certificate that accurately reflects their gender identity and other information. Transgender people, however, are denied this right. Because transgender Ohioans can correct their gender markers on other key identity documents including Ohio drivers’ licenses, and on federal documents such as passports and social security cards – and because transgender people are typically perceived by others accurately and consistent with their gender identity – an incorrect gender marker on their birth certificates discloses their transgender status. This unwanted revelation of extremely personal and intimate information causes transgender people to suffer discrimination in housing and employment, invasions of privacy, harassment, humiliation, stigma, and even violence.

Legal Theory:

Ohio’s refusal to provide transgender individuals with birth certificates that accurately reflect their gender violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, their rights of privacy and personal autonomy established by the Due Process Clause, and their First Amendment right to refrain from speaking by compelling them to disclose their transgender status and to identify with a gender that misrepresents who they are.


On March 29, 2018, we filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs are four transgender people born in Ohio who have suffered harm as a result of their incorrect birth certificates: Stacie Ray, Basil Argento, Ashley Breda, and Jane Doe. Defendants are Ohio Department of Health’s director Lance Himes and the Office of Vital Statistics’ chief and state registrar. On May 22 Defendants filed a Stipulated Notice of Extension of Time to respond to our complaint.
The parties held their 26(f) conference on June 25 and filed the Rule 26(f) Report on July 9. The initial pretrial conference with the court occurred on July 18.

On July 20 Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery pending a ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as well as an Emergency Motion for Interim Stay of Discovery pending a ruling on the Motion to Stay Discovery. We opposed both motions.

On August 2 the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for an Interim Stay but denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery. Following that, the parties exchanged initial disclosures. The Defendants provided written responses to our discovery request on November 9, but did not produce any documents responsive to our written discovery requests, citing the need for a protective order. On December 6, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order regarding the treatment of confidential documents during discovery.

On June 21, 2019, the Federal District Court for the District of Kansas entered a consent decree declaring Kansas’s prohibition on correcting birth certificates for transgender people unconstitutional, and ordering a new process allowing such corrections. As a result, Tennessee and Ohio remain the only states that do not allow transgender people to correct the gender markers on their birth certificates. On July 2, we filed a notice informing the Court of this development. Defendants filed a response on July 3.

On September 12, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The Court’s opinion focused on the Substantive Due Process privacy claim. The Court stated that it did not need to rule on our other claims, since dismissal of the case was defeated by virtue of the viable Substantive Due Process privacy claim. On September 27 Defendants filed their Answer.

To date, all plaintiffs, all experts, and a representative of the Ohio Department of Health have been deposed. Discovery closed on October 30, 2019. The parties filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment on January 16, 2020 and summary judgment briefing concluded February 27.

On June 29, 2020, we filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority directing the court’s attention to the United States Supreme Court’s Title VII decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (June 15, 2020), which held that the meaning “because of sex” in the context of employment discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

We now await a decision.