Puerto Rico Has Rational Basis for Allowing Only Two Genders for Birth Certificate Gender Changes

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, September 3). Puerto Rico Has Rational Basis for Allowing Only Two Genders for Birth Certificate Gender Changes. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/09/03/puerto-rico-has-rational-basis-for-allowing-only-two-genders-for-birth-certificate-gender-changes/

Dated when The Aporia collected the article, usually within hours of publication. Check the original for its exact date and byline.

Reason · collected 2026-09-03 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Puerto Rican policy limiting birth certificate gender changes to only two options is supported by a rational basis under the US Constitution. The key aspect of this decision is that the court found it "conceivably rational" for Puerto Rico not to update the birth certificates of nonbinary individuals, while allowing updates for binary transgender people. This ruling effectively reverses a lower court's decision that had declared the policy discriminatory against nonbinary individuals. The appeals court cited the need to protect privacy rights as a legitimate interest of Puerto Rico in maintaining this policy.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-09-03, using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the same event (that is the story summary below).

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

Puerto Rico's policy restricting birth certificate gender changes to only two options, male or female, has been upheld by a federal judge in a recent decision. A district court ruled in favor of the government, finding that the policy does not infringe on the rights of nonbinary individuals under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court concluded that Puerto Rico's interest in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens is a legitimate concern and that the birth certificate policy is rationally related to this goal. The decision was made by Judge Lara Montecalvo, joined by Chief Judge David Barron and Judge Sandra Lynch, in the case of Díaz v. Colón. The court did not reach claims under the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment, only addressing the Equal Protection claim.

Written for “Puerto Rico Transgender Law” on 2026-10-19, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Puerto Rico Transgender Law
Politics · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

Nothing to compare against. No article is close enough to this one for the pipeline to have linked or judged the pair.
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
20
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
15%
3 of 20 hedged ("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans strongly right
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
94/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Politics
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Analyzed 2026-09-03 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 43 article(s) · 0 correction(s) detected
No corrections detected for this publisher. That may mean careful reporting, or simply that nothing has been checked.

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
153 article(s) here · 1 carrying a prediction
🔮 Readers might want to know: How often do civilians use guns to help stop shooters who pose ongoing threats to multiple people?
🔮 The reality is that our en banc court is often unable or unwilling to fix things at odds with Supreme Court precedent.
🔮 Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent From a press release last month, just posted on Westlaw: N.C. Detective Agency, a Durham-based security company, will pay $65,231 in compensatory damages and back pay, and take other corrective actions to voluntarily resolve a religious discrimination investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
🔮 During a discussion in 2016 concerning whether Sabatini would endorse Knouse's application for an upcoming fellowship at Whitehead, Sabatini expressed concern that Knouse took herself too seriously and asked Knouse whether she ever had "fun," "fuck[ed] around," or had sex.
🔮 Some colorful lawyer wisdom (see, e.g., Dunn v. U.S.(5th Cir. 1962)); I found versions of this in newspapers going back to 1931, though it may have been a familiar phrase even then.
🔮 The dictionary definition of "refuse" cited by Nunes includes this meaning: "to show or express an unwillingness to do or comply with."
🔮 [Under Pennsylvania precedent,] [A] court may prohibit a parent from advocating religious beliefs, which, if acted upon, would constitute a crime.
🔮 Even in First Amendment cases, where the facial-challenge bar is lower than it otherwise might be, the plaintiff [in a facial challenge] must show that "a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
🔮 Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State.
🔮 The standard for the granting of Pseudonym status can be found in Practice Book § 11–20A(h)(1) which provides in pertinent part: "Pseudonyms may be used in place of the name of a party or parties only with the prior approval of the judicial authority and only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in knowing the name of the party or parties.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Open Thread
2026-10-19 · Reason
Open Thread
2026-10-18 · Reason
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 153 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico's the Birth Certificate Policy the Equal Protection Clause the Fourteenth Amendment

Subjects

Puerto Rico GPE · 5× Puerto Rico's GPE · 4× Arroyo González PERSON · 1× Colón PERSON · 1× David Barron PERSON · 1× Díaz PERSON · 1× Lara Montecalvo PERSON · 1× Nevares PERSON · 1× Sandra Lynch PERSON · 1× The Supreme Court ORG · 1×

Narrative

Puerto Rico has a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy rights of people born in Puerto Rico, and as Plaintiffs have neither argued nor demonstrated that the Birth Certificate Policy infringes on their privacy rights or that privacy rights are not furthered by the Policy, there is a rational relationship between the challenged classification and this legitimate interest.
framing: assertive · carried by 1 article(s) · first seen 2026-09-03
🔮 Under the rational basis standard, government conduct "is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

Claims (20 extracted, 3 hedged)

In its summary judgment order, the district court held that Plaintiffs were entitled to relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. asserted
Plaintiffs → hold → Amendment
{[T]he district court only reached Plaintiffs' claim under the Equal Protection Clause; it did not reach Plaintiffs' claims under the Due Process Clause or the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Puerto Rico Constitution.} Explaining that the Application for Gender Change gives "an option for binary applicants to choose a gender marker which aligns with their true gender, but does not provide [such] an option" for "nonbinary individuals," the district court concluded that Puerto Rico's "Birth Certificate Policy" creates a classification on its face between "people with a binary gender identity" and "nonbinary people." uncertain
Policy → reach → identity
The district court also concluded that it did not need to decide which level of scrutiny applied to Puerto Rico's Birth Certificate Policy because it held that the Policy did not survive the lowest level of scrutiny—rational scrutiny… asserted
Policy → conclude → scrutiny
. Under [the]"forgiving" standard [set forth by past cases], we conclude that Puerto Rico's Birth Certificate Policy is supported by a rational basis…. Plaintiffs' argument is founded on current Puerto Rico law, which permits transgender binary people to update the gender on their birth certificates. asserted
which → set → certificates
But Puerto Rico law allows this update because it responded to the Arroyo González v. Nevares (D.P.R. 2018) holding that the policy in effect at the time violated transgender binary individuals' privacy rights. asserted
policy → allow → rights
Unlike the transgender binary plaintiffs in Arroyo González, … Plaintiffs conceded that the Birth Certificate Policy does not violate the informational privacy right that Arroyo González contemplated, recognizing that a nonbinary gender marker inherently discloses a person's nonbinary status. asserted
marker → concede → status
Plaintiffs also fail to develop a separate argument that Puerto Rico's interest in protecting privacy rights is not furthered by the Birth Certificate Policy and its challenged classification between transgender binary people and transgender nonbinary people. asserted
interest → fail → people
Puerto Rico has a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy rights of people born in Puerto Rico, and as Plaintiffs have neither argued nor demonstrated that the Birth Certificate Policy infringes on their privacy rights or that privacy rights are not furthered by the Policy, there is a rational relationship between the challenged classification and this legitimate interest. asserted
rights → have → classification
It is thus conceivably rational for Puerto Rico to not update transgender nonbinary people's birth certificates while updating transgender binary people's birth certificates. asserted
Rico → update → certificates
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district court's order and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. asserted
we → forego → opinion
Under the rational basis standard, government conduct "is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest." asserted
classification → presume → interest
The Supreme Court has recently, in U.S. v. Skrmetti (2025), established the binding standards for rational basis review in an equal protection challenge: asserted
Court → establish → challenge
We have reconciled the principle of equal protection with the reality of legislative classification by holding that, "if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end." asserted
it → reconcile → end
We generally afford such laws "wide latitude" under this rational basis review, acknowledging that "the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes." asserted
decisions → afford → processes
It went on to hold: The rational basis inquiry "employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court's awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one." asserted
that → go → distinctions
Under this standard, we will uphold a statutory classification so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification." uncertain
that → uphold → classification
Where there exist "plausible reasons" for the relevant government action, "our inquiry is at an end." asserted
inquiry → exist → end
And it explained that: "[T]he fact the line might have been drawn differently at some points is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration." uncertain
line → explain → consideration
As we have explained, "[t]he question is not what went on in the mind of the [government] actor but whether anyone, including the judge, can conceive of a rational reason for such a classification." asserted
anyone → explain → classification
Puerto Rico Solicitor General Omar Andino-Figueroa and Deputy Solicitor General Frank A. Rosado Méndez represent Puerto Rico. asserted
Figueroa → represent → Rico
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support