Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-2178
No. 13-2182
No. 13-2183
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Charleston.
David C. Norton, District
Judge. (2:13-cv-01303-DCN)
Argued:
Decided:
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Kenneth N. Shaw, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD,
P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant Dr. James
Amrhein.
Robert H. Hood, Barbara Wynne Showers, Deborah
Harrison Sheffield, HOOD LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellants Dr. Ian Aaronson and Dr. Yaw AppiagyeiDankah.
William H. Davidson, II, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants Kim Aydlette, Meredith
Williams, Candice Davis, and Mary Searcy.
Kenneth M. Suggs,
JANET, JENNER AND SUGGS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Alesdair
H. Ittelson, David Dinielli, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER,
Montgomery, Alabama; Anne Tamar-Mattis, ADVOCATES FOR INFORMED
CHOICE, Cotati, California; John Lovi, William Ellerbe, STEPTOE
AND JOHNSON LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.
Suzanne B.
Goldberg, Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL,
New York, New York, for Amicus AIS-DSD Support Group. Priscilla
J. Smith, LAW OFFICE OF PRISCILLA J. SMITH, Brooklyn, New York,
for Amicus The Program for the Study of Reproductive JusticeInformation Society Project at The Yale Law School and
Constitutional Scholars.
Carolina
diagnosed
at
M.C.,
who
Department
was
birth
with
of
an
in
the
Social
intersex
legal
custody
Services
condition.
and
of
had
Four
the
been
months
after the surgery, Pamela and Mark Crawford took custody of M.C.
before adopting him in December 2006.
were
violating
his
clearly
established
constitutional
rights, we reverse.
I.
In our de novo review of a denial of a motion to dismiss
based
on
qualified
immunity,
we
take
as
true
the
facts
as
alleged in the complaint, and view those facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.
We
the
individual
has
ovarian
and
testicular
tissue.
treating
Through
extremely
elevated
testosterone
levels
and
that
his
J.A. 21-22.
Carolina
December
2006,
Department
when
the
of
Social
Crawfords
Services
adopted
(SCDSS)
him.
until
Before
the
recommended
to
M.C,
that
the
M.C.
doctors
have
sex
recommended
assignment
the
surgery.
irreversible,
The doctors also knew that they could assign M.C. a gender of
rearing and postpone surgery and that the surgery carried risks
6
gender
misassignment,
distress.
J.A. 24-25.
April
performed
This
surgery
2006,
with
feminizing
involved
lifetime
psychological
and
J.A. 25.
consent
genitoplasty
removing
SCDSS, 1
from
most
on
Dr.
Aaronson
sixteen-month-old
of
M.C.s
phallus,
M.C.
his
But as M.C.
Fourteenth
process violations.
Amendment
substantive
and
procedural
He
due
The court
J.A. 244.
The defendants
F.3d 525, 528 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (To the extent that an
order of a district court rejecting a governmental officials
qualified
immunity
defense
turns
on
question
of
law,
it
II.
A.
To
avoid
dismissal
of
complaint
after
qualified
Courts
of
the
two
prongs
of
the
qualified
immunity
analysis
Id. at 236.
Anderson
v.
Creighton,
483
U.S.
635,
640
(1987)
(citation omitted).
To be clearly established, [t]he contours of the right
must
be
sufficiently
clear
that
reasonable
official
can
be
clearly
established
even
in
novel
would
Id.
The
factual
Id. at 741.
45.
B.
We
first
consider
M.C.s
contention,
accepted
by
the
district court, that the defendants had fair warning that the
sex
assignment
reproduction.
surgery
violated
his
constitutional
right
to
attention
to
three
cases:
Planned
Parenthood
of
Southeastern
Although we acknowledge
clearly
establishing
an
infants
constitutional
right
to
Casey,
essential
Supreme
holding
of
the
right
recognizing
abortion
the
before
Roe
Court
reaffirmed
the
three-part
v.
Wade,
410
U.S.
113
of
the
woman
to
choose
to
viability
and
to
obtain
it
(1973),
have
without
an
undue
and
legitimate
establishing
interests
the
from
the
principle
outset
of
that
the
the
State
pregnancy
has
in
protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus
that may become a child.
Id. at 541.
The Court
gave the example that the sterilization law did not apply to
embezzlers but did apply to those who committed grand larceny.
Id. at 541-42.
In Avery, we considered the case of a fifteen-year-old girl
who was misdiagnosed with sickle cell trait and then counseled
by state actors to be sterilized.
their
advice,
Avery
and
her
Relying on
consented
to
the
sterilization, but later tests showed that she did not have
sickle cell trait.
sterilized
Id.
because
the
misdiagnosis
and
because
Id.
1983
if
their
policies
or
customs
actually
caused
cell
trait
amounted
to
11
tacit
authorization
or
Id. at
114-15. 2
Relying on the principles gleaned from these cases, the
district
clearly
think,
court
concluded
established
however,
that
right
that
this
the
to
defendants
violated
procreation.
frames
the
right
J.A.
too
M.C.s
244.
broadly
We
for
district
inappropriate
whether
court
degree
much
more
erred
of
in
defining
abstraction
factually
and
detailed
the
right
instead
right
at
an
considering
was
clearly
established).
In our view, the alleged right at issue is that of an
infant to delay medically unnecessary sex assignment surgery.
By medically unnecessary, we mean that no imminent threat to
M.C.s health or life required state officials to consent to the
surgery, or doctors to perform it.
12
bright lines.
Cir. 1992).
that
not
reached
the
by
the
district
defendants
had
fair
court,
warning
M.C.
that
the
also
sex
We find these
and
Rochin
involved
medical
procedures
to
secure
470
U.S.
and
at
755.
unconstitutional
The
three
Court
in
police
Rochin
officers
found
shocking
struggle
to
open
Neither of these
cases, however, gave the defendants fair notice that they were
13
that
case
barring
criminal
We do not
prosecution
based
on
defendants
fair
notice
that
they
could
not
perform
sex
risks
surgery,
and
as
alternatives
alleging,
purported
well
to
he
as
sterilization.
the
surgery.
equates
benefits
the
of
early
possibility
Appellees
sex
of
Br.
assignment
[sex
at
assignment]
postponement
46-47.
surgery
to
In
or
so
forced
14
fair
warning
that
they
were
violating
M.C.s
clearly
M.C.s citations
2006,
when
the
surgery
took
place,
and
all
come
from
Buck
and
of
mental
and
Skinner
involved
defectives
habitual
intentional,
committed
criminal[s],
respectively.
complaint
in
this
case
alleges
that
to
certain
state
Buck,
In stark contrast,
the
sex
assignment
such
capacity.
brief
surgery
may
reduce
or
eliminate
describes
the
surgery
as
reproductive
fertility-destroying
and
cautiously
sterilization,
risks.
describes
with
loss
the
of
surgery
male
as
fertility
as
potential
one
of
the
of
qualified
immunity,
the
unlawfulness
must
which M.C. relies did not make it apparent that the defendants
acted unlawfully by not seeking a hearing before the surgery.
III.
Our core inquiry is whether a reasonable official in 2006
would
have
performing
violated
fair
sex
warning
assignment
clearly
from
then-existing
surgery
established
on
precedent
that
sixteen-month-old
M.C.
constitutional
right.
In
hold
qualified
that
immunity
bars
his
federal
constitutional
16