Puerto Rico Allows LGBTQ+ People To Use 'X' Gender Marker On Birth Certificates
In what activists say is a landmark decision for Puerto Rico, a federal judge issued a ruling on Monday allowing nonbinary, intersex and gender-fluid individuals in the territory to adjust their birth certificate so that it accurately reflects their gender identity.
Judge María Antongiorgi Jordán, of the Federal District of Puerto Rico, ordered the Demographic Registry to amend a form so that people can select 'X' as a gender marker on their birth certificate. Gov. Jenniffer González Colón said she was awaiting recommendations from the territory's Justice Department regarding the ruling, and applicants will have to wait to change their gender marker until the new form is available.
'At a time when nonbinary, gender nonconforming and trans communities are under attack, this historic decision opens the door to the full recognition of their dignity,' said Pedro Julio Serrano, activist and president of the LGBTQ+ Federation of Puerto Rico. 'We celebrate a milestone that allows the equality promised in the Constitution to be put in practice.'
Trans people in Puerto Rico have been allowed to change their gender marker from 'male' to 'female' and vice versa since 2018, but until Monday could not choose an option that aligned with an identity outside the gender binary. This difference violates the right to equal protection of all people, according to the court order.
'The Court finds there is no rational basis to deny the plaintiff's request,' the order said. 'The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's current birth certificate policy arbitrarily distinguishes between binary and nonbinary individuals and subjects nonbinary individuals to disadvantaged treatment without any justification for doing so.'
The ruling is in response to an October 2023 lawsuit against González Colón requesting the 'X' marker on birth certificates. The suit was filed by six nonbinary Puerto Ricans: Ínaru Nadia de la Fuente Díaz, Maru Rosa Hernández, André Rodil, Yelvy Vélez Bartolomei, Gé Castro Cruz and Deni Juste.
The ruling 'represents a respite from so much repression … It's an unexpected victory,' de la Fuente Díaz told Puerto Rican outlet Todas. 'The fact that you wake up every day knowing that they're trying to take away your rights, and the next day you wake up and find that they won the lawsuit, that there's a possibility of continuing to fight in this political climate, shows once again that [U.S. President Donald Trump] doesn't have absolute power, nor does the government of Puerto Rico.'
Puerto Rico has long had a history of grassroots activism that protects and uplifts the territory's LGBTQ+ communities — beating 30 states and other U.S. territories in overall LGBTQ+ rights and equity, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Trans and nonbinary Puerto Ricans had been able to choose a third gender marker on their passports since 2021, until Trump signed an executive order threatening it.
The January order prohibits the use of 'X' on federal documents like U.S. passports, military IDs and Social Security cards — not state- and territory-issued papers like birth certificates and driver's licenses. Trump's order, which is policy and not law, was temporarily halted by a federal judge in April.
At least 16 states and the District of Columbia currently allow citizens to use the 'X' gender marker on their birth certificates, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Many in the LGBTQ+ community have expressed concern about that changing under an administration actively working to roll back civil rights, but activists say they're determined to keep fighting for equality.
'This is proof that when you fight, you win,' said Ivana Fred Millán, director of the LGBTQ+ Federation that's made up of hundreds of individuals and more than 100 community and allied organizations.
'Even with so many attacks, the LGBTQ+ communities are still fighting to achieve the promised equality,' she continued. 'We will not take a step back and will continue fighting until equality is achieved.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sides with Ohio woman in 'reverse discrimination' case
The US Supreme Court has sided with an Ohio woman who alleged she was discriminated against at her job because she was heterosexual. The justices voted unanimously in a ruling focused on evidence standards that could make it easier to file similar "reverse discrimination" cases. Marlean Ames said that despite working for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years, she was denied a promotion and then demoted. She had appealed to the court to challenge the standards required to prove her case. The decision effectively lowers the burden of proof required for people who are members of a majority group - such as white or heterosexual people - to make discrimination claims. US court precedent covering some states, including Ohio, had required that members of majority groups show additional "background circumstances" to prove their case or evidence showing a pattern of discrimination. The court has now ruled that the standard of evidence for a discrimination claim should be the same, regardless of a person's identity. Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, one of the court's liberals, wrote the official opinion, with concurring opinions from conservatives Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. The court concluded that anti-discrimination and equal protection laws were meant to apply to all Americans. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual'—without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group—Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," she wrote. The court did not consider Ms Ames' original discrimination suit. The justices said it was up to lower courts that had initially ruled against her to evaluate the case under the clarified evidence standards. Legal experts say employment discrimination and bias cases can be difficult to demonstrate, regardless of the burden of proof. Ms Ames had said she had positive performance reviews, but a promotion she sought was given to a lesbian. She was then demoted and her job was given to a gay man. In a lawsuit, she argued her employer had a preference for LGBTQ staff members and denied her opportunities because she identifies as straight. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of her claim, propelling the burden of proof question to the Supreme Court. At a February hearing, justices on both sides ideologically appeared sympathetic to her argument. US Supreme Court hears arguments in 'straight discrimination' case
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump vs. the courts: A constitutional crisis approaches
The Trump presidency is mired in litigation, facing some 250 lawsuits over its hailstorm of executive orders, substantially more orders than had been filed at this point during his first term. The unprecedented flood of legal action has for the moment scotched some of Trump's signature priorities, but courts have cleared others to move forward while litigation continues. Judges have temporarily frozen Trump's efforts to punish elite law firms and Harvard University, as well as to deport immigrants without due process. Courts have allowed Trump to fire independent regulators while litigation continues. The Court of International Trade blocked the 10 percent tariffs Trump imposed on all foreign products, as well as higher levies applied to imports from several dozen nations, but an appellate court stayed the ruling for the time being. Trump has been notoriously cavalier when it comes to compliance with court orders seeking to reverse his administration's actions. We hear a lot about the potential for a constitutional crisis these days, but no one can tell us exactly what that is. Perhaps the definition channels Justice Potter Stewart's famous test for hard-core pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Presidents have sometimes been at odds with the Supreme Court. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt, irked that the court was striking down his New Deal legislation in a series of five-to-four decisions, proposed a court-packing bill to 'save the Constitution from the court and the court from itself.' Harry Truman didn't like it when the court invalidated his seizure of the steel mills, and Barack Obama was critical of the Citizen's United decision opening the flood gates to big money in politics. But, generally, presidents have sucked it in and followed Supreme Court decisions and precedents. Trump has been even more outspoken. He is particularly upset with one of his appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And he has been critical of the decisions of two others, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump claims without basis that a 'judicial coup' is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority, and his supporters have called for the impeachment of judges who have rendered decisions with which he disagrees. Most ominous, he has played it close to the chalk, maneuvering to end run or otherwise flout court orders. 'The Supreme Court … is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,' Trump lamented on Truth Social, after the high court's sternly worded order temporarily blocking deportations of alleged gang members in northern Texas. The next day, Trump circulated an ominous post from conservative legal apparatchik Mike Davis, which blasted, 'The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.' The same observation may be said of Trump. Most notoriously, his administration illegally rendered Kilmar Abrego Garcia to rot in a prison in El Salvador, admitting it could pick up the telephone and bring him back. The Supreme Court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return, but Trump has left the Oval Office phone on its cradle. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled in May that the administration 'unquestionably' violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them adequate notice and opportunity to object. The administration ignored a court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because on the grounds that the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply. And a judge found that the White House had failed to comply with a temporary order to unblock federal funding to states that had been subjected to a sweeping freeze. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as 'beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.' He reasoned that the court only has the power of judgment. Its authority relies not on coercive ability, but rather on the trust of both the other branches of government and the public in its integrity as an impartial arbiter of the law. Once in power, Trump conspicuously moved a portrait of Andrew Jackson into the Oval Office. It was Jackson who is thought to have said, 'John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' Chief Justice Marshall's decision was really a confrontation with Georgia, not with the president, and historians doubt that Jackson ever uttered those famous words, but they make plain that if a president decides to defy court rulings, there isn't anything the court can do. After all, he commands the armed forces. Whether Jackson said it or not, Chief Justice John Roberts gets the point. His court has steadily thrown crumbs to both sides, expanding presidential power — but not without limits. So far, he has succeeded in walking the tightrope between sanctioning an unprecedented expansion of executive power and confronting Trump when he gets out of line. The justices have allowed the administration for now to bar transgender troops from the military, fire independent agency leaders without cause, halt education grants and remove protections for as many as 350,000 Venezuelans migrants admitted under a Biden-era program. Trump has said that he has great respect for the Supreme Court and that his administration will abide by its decisions. But do you trust him when his social media posts have bristled with anger at the courts? The percolating tension poses a serious test for Roberts's leadership and the Supreme Court's legitimacy at a time when the court and the country are ideologically divided, and Americans' trust in the court is rapidly evaporating. Roberts appears to have been in the majority in all but one of the approximately 10 substantive actions the court has taken so far. There are parallels between Roberts's approach and the legacy of John Marshall, who was also careful not to engage in unwinnable battles. 'I am not fond of butting against a wall in sport,' Marshall wrote to his colleague Justice Joseph Story in 1823. Roberts recently invoked Marshall's pivotal legacy. 'He is … the most important figure in American political history' who was not a president, Roberts said.' A lot more important than about half the presidents,' he added. What flows from a constitutional crisis? Surely, the end of American government as we have known it. If Trump defies a Supreme Court order, the only remedy would appear to be impeachment, an unlikely prospect given the political composition of Congress. Face it, a constitutional crisis could sink the ship of state. As for the delicate balance, FDR could not have put it better. 'The American form of Government,' he said in his 1937 fireside chat, is 'a three horse team provided by the Constitution to the American people so that their field might be plowed. Two of the horses are pulling in unison today; the third is not … It is the American people themselves who are in the driver's seat. It is the American people themselves who want the furrow plowed.' James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's attacks on the rule of law threaten all Americans
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has repeatedly and persistently misused his executive authority to attack and intimidate anyone who would dare to check him. In his first few months, he has gone after the free press, encroached on the independence of Congress and the courts, stifled institutions of higher learning, fired inspectors general and others inside the federal government who could hold him accountable, and even targeted law firms that represent clients he dislikes. These abuses of power trample the values of our democracy and violate the rights of everyday Americans. When a president threatens law firms for retribution, it's an attack on the constitutional rights of all Americans to access legal counsel, voice dissent and make clear what we expect from our leaders. As attorney general of Minnesota, I know lawyers are not just spectators to the Constitution — we are its agents. We defend laws that protect people from harm. We hold bad actors accountable. We take a solemn oath to respect the courts. And when the executive branch oversteps the bounds of its authority, state attorneys general check the federal government to protect our residents' rights. Above all, we stand for the rule of law. But attacks on the rule of law have become a hallmark of the new administration. President Trump has disparaged federal judges as 'lunatics' and called for their impeachment, earning the reprimand of Chief Justice John Roberts. He has ignored court orders after illegally deporting a lawful U.S. resident without due process, treading close to charges of contempt. He has signed executive orders to punish some of the largest law firms in the country because they dared to go against him in court or take on clients he viewed as political enemies. When 'Meet the Press' recently asked the president if his job is to uphold the Constitution, he said, 'I don't know.' But that is absolutely his job: The president took an oath to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,' and we all watched him do it. To disregard this duty is unacceptable and alarming. These escalating attacks on courts, judges, lawyers and the rule of law are a blatant attempt to avoid accountability and to intimidate the people whose job it is to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is showing its resilience in the face of these attacks. A federal judge made it abundantly clear last week that the president's retaliation campaign against law firms is unconstitutional. In a powerful 102-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell called the president's executive order against Perkins Coie — a law firm that has represented Trump's opponents — an 'unprecedented attack' on our foundational principles. She issued a warning that we should all take heed of: 'Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.' The ruling is a heartening decision for the rule of law. But we must stay vigilant: Trump has a boundless appetite for retaliation against anyone who sides with the truth over his lies. In addition to his attacks on Perkins Coie and other firms, last month, the president called on the Department of Justice to investigate and sanction officials from his prior administration because they had the audacity to defy him. In one executive order, Trump called Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 'abusive' because he said the 2020 election was secure and accurate. We have seen what happens when the president's allies side with Trump instead of the truth and the rule of law. Even when Trump manages to escape accountability, those around him often do not. The failed campaign to overturn the accurate results of the 2020 election led to the punishment of several unethical attorneys behind it, such as John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. They were held accountable by state and federal justice departments, as well as several state bar authorities, for failing to uphold their oaths as attorneys committed to the rule of law. In this challenging time, when Americans' right to choose their counsel and defend their constitutional rights is under attack, lawyers who serve the public have a critical role to play. But those who want to honor their oaths to the American public are in a difficult position — we've already seen government lawyers who stand up to the administration dismissed from their positions. We should all be ready to support them for honoring their values, and for sharing the truth of the administration's willingness to abandon the rule of law. And they should know that attorneys general across the states are standing with them, working to ensure the law applies equally to everyone. As attorneys and public servants, our loyalty must be to faithfully execute and defend the law, not bow to the bully in the White House. Keith Ellison is attorney general of Minnesota. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
