Roe v. Petersen

── Roe v. Petersen ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELEN ROE, a minor, by and No. 25-6970 through her parent and next friend D.C. No. Megan Roe; JAMES POE, a minor, 4:20-cv-00484- by and through his parent and next JAS friend Laura Poe; CARL VOE, a District of minor, by and through his parent and Arizona, next friend Rachel Voe, Tucson Plaintiffs - Appellees, ORDER v. DEBORAH JOHNSTON, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Defendant - Appellant. HELEN ROE, a minor, by and No. 25-6980 through her parent and next friend D.C. No. Megan Roe; JAMES POE, a minor, 4:20-cv-00484- by and through his parent and next JAS friend Laura Poe; CARL VOE, a District of minor, by and through his parent and Arizona, next friend Rachel Voe, Tucson 2 ROE V. JOHNSTON Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. DEBORAH JOHNSTON, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, Defendant - Appellee, v. WARREN PETERSEN, President of the Arizona State Senate; Proposed Intervenor-Defendant; STEVE MONTENEGRO, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives; Proposed Intervenor-Defendant, Movants - Appellants. Filed April 28, 2026 Before: Andrew D. Hurwitz and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges.* * After this matter was argued and submitted, Susan P. Graber, Circuit Judge, recused. In accordance with General Order 3.2(h), this order is issued by Judge Hurwitz and Judge Desai as a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).  ROE V. JOHNSTON 3 SUMMARY** Stay Pending Appeal The panel granted a motion of the Director of Arizona’s Department of Health Services for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s permanent injunction in a case in which a class of transgender people in Arizona allege that A.R.S. § 36-337(A)(3), which requires the registrar to amend a birth certificate when she receives verification that the individual seeking amendment has undergone a “sex change operation,” unconstitutionally infringes on the rights of transgender people who have not undergone a “sex change operation.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on all claims. In September 2025, the district court entered a permanent injunction, striking the word “operation” from the statute and its implementing regulation, but delayed its effective date to April 30, 2026. In light of the stay factors in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009), and the panel’s interest in preserving the status quo while the panel decides the merits of this appeal, the panel stayed pending resolution of this appeal the district court’s orders entering a permanent injunction and making the injunction effective on April 30, 2026. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 ROE V. JOHNSTON COUNSEL Rachel H. Berg (argued) and Kelly J. Popkin, National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Sacramento, California; Patrick J. Hayden, Cooley LLP, New York, New York; Kyle C. Wong, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, California; Mary O'Grady, Colin M. Proksel, and Payslie M. Bowman, Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, Arizona; for Plain