In re Robert Wright Heilig
Maryland Court of Appeals
816 A.2d 68 (2003)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Janet Heilig Wright (petitioner), a transgender woman, was a Maryland resident born in the state of Pennsylvania. The name listed on her Pennsylvania birth certificate was Robert Wright Heilig, and the sex was listed as male. Wright sought an order from the court that would change her name from Robert Wright Heilig to Janet Heilig Wright and change her sexual-identity designation from male to female. Wright relied on a Maryland statute (the statute) that provided that upon receiving a court order indicating that the sex of an individual born in the state has been changed by surgical procedure, the secretary shall amend the certificate of birth. Wright contended that although she did not have a Maryland birth certificate, she was entitled to her request under equal-protection principles. The circuit court issued an order granting the requested name change, but without granting a declaration as to sexual identity. The circuit court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Wright’s petition, and that gender could not be changed. The court of special appeals upheld the decision, concluding that Wright had not proven that her sex change was permanent. The factual evidence Wright submitted consisted of two affidavits, one of which was from a medical doctor who attested to the hormone therapy Wright received, and the other from a social worker who opined that Wright’s true identity was that of a woman.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.