The Supreme Court of Ohio has left a probate court's decision intact, denying a transgender woman's request to change the sex marker on her birth certificate. The case, involving Hailey Adelaide, was unable to secure a majority decision from the divided court.
Justice Joseph T. Deters, along with Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine, wrote that neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court had judicial power under the Ohio Constitution to consider Adelaide’s appeal due to a lack of "adversity." Justice Deters explained that "just as one cannot appeal a probate court’s decision on whom to place on a park district board, one cannot appeal a probate court’s decision on whether to change a sex marker on a birth certificate."
However, Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner argued that both the Second District and Supreme Court had the authority to hear the case and adversity was not at issue. They were unable to agree on how to resolve the merits of the case.
Justice Fischer noted that "the proper step would have been for the Court to require additional briefing by Adelaide and any other interested party before considering the issue," but found it unconvincing that there was no jurisdiction due to lack of adversity. He stated that if adversity was required at an appellate level, "the state registrar is likely the adverse party in this case" because they are tasked with administering and enforcing rules related to correcting birth records.
Justice Donnelly agreed with Fischer's analysis regarding jurisdiction but found Adelaide did not meet legal requirements for changing her birth certificate's sex marker. He urged legislative changes for transgender citizens' concerns: "It should enact a statute creating a mechanism by which transgender persons born in Ohio may seek a change of their sex marker."
Justice Brunner dissented further by referencing prior practices where probate courts granted such requests before 2015 policy changes by Ohio Department of Health muddied interpretations of relevant laws.
Adelaide initially sought this change based upon personal identification since age four; however, both lower courts concluded corrections could only be made if information was improperly recorded at birth - which wasn't applicable here given male anatomy presence during infancy period.