SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday stayed a permanent injunction that would have required Arizona to let transgender residents amend their birth certificates without proof of a sex change operation, halting a ruling that was two days from taking effect while the court weighs whether the state's "sex change operation" requirement violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

The case was brought by a class of transgender Arizonans — identified in court filings as Helen Roe, James Poe, and Carl Voe, all minors suing through their parents — who argued that A.R.S. § 36-337(A)(3) unconstitutionally burdens transgender people who have not undergone a "sex change operation" by conditioning birth-certificate amendments on proof of that procedure.

The district court in Tucson agreed, granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs on all claims. In September 2025, it entered a permanent injunction enjoining the word "operation" from the statute and its implementing regulation, then delayed the effective date to April 30, 2026 — giving the state time to appeal.

The panel heard oral argument on April 14 and, with the injunction's effective date looming, moved quickly. Applying the four-factor framework from Nken v. Holder, Circuit Judges Andrew D. Hurwitz and Roopali H. Desai signed off on the stay, citing their interest in preserving the status quo while the merits are decided.

The order is spare on reasoning, saying only that "a stay pending appeal is warranted" in light of the Nken factors, and promising a merits decision "in due course." The court noted, citing Nken, that a stay pending appeal "simply suspends judicial alteration of the status quo."

Deborah Johnston, in her official capacity as State Registrar of Vital Records and Interim Director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, is the named appellant. Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro sought to intervene on the state's side.

Ten states — California, Washington, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, and Oregon — and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs backing the transgender plaintiffs. Lambda Legal and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders also appeared as amici in support of the class.

The panel's composition shrank after the argument: Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber recused after the case was argued and submitted, leaving Hurwitz and Desai to issue the order as a quorum under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Plaintiffs were represented by the National Center for LGBTQ Rights alongside Cooley LLP and Osborn Maledon PA — meaning the class of transgender minors must now wait for a merits ruling before the injunction can take effect.