District court tosses transgender man’s name-change suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A district court judge has dismissed a suit brought against former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and other state officials by a transgender man who claims his non-citizen status prohibits him from legally changing his name to match his gender identity.

When John Doe brought his case before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, he claimed that Pence, former Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and Marion County Clerk Myra Eldridge violated his constitutional rights under the First and 14th Amendments through a state statute prohibiting non-citizens from legally changing their names. Doe came to the United States from Mexico in 1990 and was granted in asylum in 2015 after the U.S. government determined that his status as a transgender man would put him in danger in his home country.

When Doe, whose legal name is “Jane,” visited the Marion County Clerk’s office to fill out an application to legally change his name to “John” to match his identity as a male, the clerk’s office staff informed him that his petition would not receive final approval if he could not provide proof of citizenship. Doe claimed the applicable statute, Indiana Code section 34-28-2-2.5, is a violation of his First and 14th Amendment rights, but Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed his case Monday for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The defendants, which later included Lillia Judson, the former executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration, each moved to dismiss Doe’s case for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). Specifically, the defendants alleged that because Doe never actually filled out the application to change his name, he cannot establish an actual injury. Further, the defendants argued that Doe will be able to apply for a name change once he becomes a citizen, so his legal claim is actually a question of timing.

Pence and Zoeller argued that their general roles as enforcers of state law did not give them specific authority to challenge or enforce the section of Indiana Code at issue here. Magnus-Stinson agreed, holding that because Doe did not establish that his injuries can be traced to either the former governor or attorney general, his claims against them cannot stand.

In regard to his claims against Judson, Doe held that she contributed in part to his injuries because her office published forms to “prevent or discourage non-citizens from accessing changes of legal name.” But Doe did not provide any allegations as to what role the forms play in the process of applying for and granting a name-change petition, the chief judge said, so he failed to establish a causal connection between Judson and his injuries.

Finally, with respect to Eldridge, Magnus-Stinson wrote that although her office informed Doe that his petition would not be granted, it had no authority to screen out any name-change petitions that were filed. Thus, if Doe had filed his petition, the clerk’s office would have accepted it and forwarded it to the proper court for resolution, rather than acting on it to enforce section 34-28-2-2.5.

Based on that evidence, Magnus-Stinson wrote that Doe failed to prove that any of the defendants had caused his injuries or that judgment against them would redress those alleged injuries. Thus, the 12(b)(1) motions were granted and the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Barbara Baird, an Indianapolis attorney who represented Doe along with national Mexican and transgender rights groups, was not immediately available for comment Monday.  The order can be read here


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.