Legal Challenge Over Gender Identity Discrimination and State Policy

Case Overview: M.B. v. State of Montana

A legal case concerning gender identity discrimination was brought before the Missoula County Courthouse. The case centers on an individual, identified as “M.B.,” who was denied a Montana driver’s license after indicating their gender as non-binary (“N-B”) on the application form. This legal challenge directly addresses the alignment of state administrative procedures with international commitments to equality and non-discrimination, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Arguments Presented and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

The oral arguments presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant highlight a significant conflict between state policy and the principles of inclusion and equality enshrined in the SDGs.

• Plaintiff’s Position (ACLU of Montana): The plaintiff’s representation argued that denying services based on gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. This position advocates for the legal recognition of gender identity as a protected class, which is fundamental to achieving several SDGs.
  1. SDG 5: Gender Equality: The argument aligns with Target 5.1, which calls for an end to all forms of discrimination against all women and girls. By extension, this includes discrimination based on gender identity, promoting a broader and more inclusive understanding of gender equality.
  2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The case directly addresses Target 10.3, which aims to ensure equal opportunity and eliminate discriminatory laws and policies. The denial of a driver’s license represents a policy that creates unequal outcomes for non-binary individuals, hindering their social and economic inclusion (Target 10.2).
• Defendant’s Position (State of Montana): The state, represented by the Assistant Attorney General, contended that the application was denied because it was incomplete, as neither the “male” nor “female” box was checked. The state’s counsel suggested that the applicant was only required to “pick a box for sex,” irrespective of its accuracy.
  1. Conflict with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This stance raises questions about the inclusivity and responsiveness of public institutions (Target 16.6). By enforcing a rigid binary choice, the policy fails to provide accessible services for all, undermining the goal of building effective and accountable institutions.
  2. Barrier to SDG 10: The state’s requirement effectively forces individuals to misrepresent their identity to access a public service, which is contrary to the spirit of Target 10.3 (ensuring equal opportunity) and Target 10.2 (promoting social inclusion of all).

Judicial Review and Implications for Institutional Accountability

The presiding judge, Shane Vannatta, questioned the functional relevance of designating sex as a prerequisite for obtaining a driver’s license. This line of inquiry scrutinizes the necessity and fairness of the administrative requirement, which is a key aspect of ensuring just and non-discriminatory policies as promoted by SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), specifically Target 16.b.

The court has taken the matter under advisement. The eventual ruling will have significant implications for the state’s adherence to principles of non-discrimination and its progress toward creating inclusive institutions that serve all members of the population, a foundational element for achieving sustainable development.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article discusses a legal case concerning gender identity discrimination, which connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) focused on equality, justice, and inclusion.

   • SDG 5: Gender Equality

     This goal aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. The principle extends to ending all forms of gender-based discrimination. The case of M.B., a non-binary individual, being denied a driver’s license directly relates to discrimination based on gender identity. The ACLU’s argument that “gender identity discrimination is a form of sex discrimination” firmly places the issue within the scope of SDG 5.

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     This goal focuses on reducing inequality within and among countries, including by empowering and promoting the social and economic inclusion of all, irrespective of sex or other status. Denying an individual a driver’s license—a key document for mobility and identification—based on their non-binary identity is a clear example of a policy creating inequality and social exclusion.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This goal is centered on promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The article describes a court case, which is a mechanism for seeking justice. The issue also involves legal identity (a driver’s license) and challenges whether state institutions and their policies (the application form) are non-discriminatory and inclusive.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   The article’s content points to several specific targets under the identified SDGs.

   • Targets under SDG 5:

     • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” While the target’s text specifies “women and girls,” its broader principle of ending gender-based discrimination is central to the case. The lawsuit aims to end a discriminatory practice that affects individuals based on their gender identity.

   • Targets under SDG 10:

     • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The denial of a driver’s license is a form of social and economic exclusion. The case for M.B. is a direct effort to promote the inclusion of non-binary individuals, whose gender identity falls under “other status.”
     • Target 10.3: “Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices…” The lawsuit directly challenges the state’s policy regarding the driver’s license application form, which the ACLU argues is a discriminatory practice. The state’s defense that M.B. simply needed to “pick a box for sex and complete the form… it didn’t matter if it was true or not” highlights the policy being contested.

   • Targets under SDG 16:

     • Target 16.9: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” A driver’s license is a fundamental form of legal identity. The case highlights a barrier preventing a non-binary individual from obtaining this legal identity. The article notes that M.B.’s gender identity is “accurately listed on other documents like their birth certificate or passport,” underscoring the conflict in how legal identity is recognized by different state and federal bodies.
     • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The entire legal proceeding described in the article is an attempt to enforce and promote a non-discriminatory policy for issuing state identification. The court is being asked to rule on whether the current policy is discriminatory and should be changed.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it implies several ways to measure progress.

   • Existence of Legal Frameworks on Discrimination

     The lawsuit itself serves as an indicator. It points to a perceived gap in the legal framework protecting against discrimination based on gender identity. Progress could be measured by the number of states or jurisdictions that have laws and policies explicitly prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and allowing for non-binary gender markers on official documents. The ACLU’s argument that “gender identity should be recognized as a protected class” directly relates to this indicator.

   • Access to Public Services and Legal Identity

     A direct indicator implied by the article is the ability of individuals to obtain official identification documents that accurately reflect their gender identity. The fact that M.B. “was denied a Montana driver’s license after marking ‘N-B’ for non-binary” is a clear data point showing a lack of access. Progress would be measured by the proportion of the population, including transgender and non-binary individuals, who possess a legal identity document. The outcome of the court case will be a key indicator of progress on this front in Montana.

   • Reports of Discrimination

     The case filed by the ACLU on behalf of M.B. is a formal report of discrimination. This aligns with indicators that measure the proportion of the population who report experiencing discrimination. The filing of such lawsuits can be tracked as an indicator of both the prevalence of discriminatory practices and the population’s access to justice to challenge them.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Implied from the Article)
   SDG 5: Gender Equality	5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.	Existence of legal frameworks that protect against discrimination based on gender identity.
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… sex… or other status.	Proportion of non-binary individuals able to access public services (e.g., obtaining a driver’s license) without facing discrimination.
   	10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.	The number of discriminatory policies (like restrictive application forms) that are challenged in court or reformed.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.9: Provide legal identity for all.	The ability of individuals to have their self-identified gender accurately reflected on official legal identity documents (e.g., driver’s licenses, birth certificates).
   	16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.	The number of legal cases filed to challenge and enforce non-discriminatory policies.

Source: montanarightnow.com