Mississippi Supreme Court Allows Judge to Block Name Changes for Trans People Under 21

15-year-old girls can get married in the state, but trans people may have to wait until they’re 21 years old to change their name.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that an 18-year-old trans man is not yet old enough to be granted a name change by the state, even with parental consent; he will have to wait until he is 21 years old, the court said.

Mississippians as young as 17 years old (for boys) and 15 years old (for girls) may get married. They may have a child and choose a name for that child. But the courts denied the name change request of SBM, a trans man with the full support of his parents in his transition, because they found 18 years old is not an adequate age to ensure “maturity” and warrant such a “life-altering” decision.

Unlike most states, Mississippi’s “age of majority,” or the age where the state recognizes someone as an adult, is 21, not 18. This means Mississippians under 21 years old cannot enter legally binding contracts in many instances, without parental sign-off.

“Denial of an adult or minor name change based on transgender identity has been universally rejected in any U.S. jurisdiction in which it has been considered – except Mississippi," McKenna Raney, LGBTQ Justice Project staff attorney at the ACLU of Mississippi, told The Advocate.

Name changes related to gender transition are singled out. Other name change requests—such as an 18-year-old woman who wants to take her husband’s last name—do not seem to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.

The ACLU had taken up the case, SBM v. Mississippi State Board of Health, after a Hinds County chancellor denied the plaintiff’s initial application. It is common case law for parental rights to be limited when a child’s “best interest” is being severely compromised, but this is a highly subjective metric.

"Allowing a chancellor to supersede two parents with no evidence that the name change is against the child’s best interest is enormously disruptive to family integrity, indicating a judge is more qualified to decide a child’s name than their parent," Raney, of the ACLU, continued. "This is not the kind of governmental interference we have in Mississippi over family choices.”

The decision also misgenders SBM throughout the document.

The decision does not outright ban name changes in the age range with parental consent, but it does set a dangerous precedent: that trans people, regardless of age and regardless of how supportive their family might be, can and will have their rights taken away by the government at-will. It is also a damning indictment of the so-called “parental rights” movement. Under this rallying cry, conservatives across the country have been shepherding legislation that seeks to forcibly out trans students to their legal guardians and allow them to control what name and pronouns their child uses in school.

The plaintiff may still be able to cross state lines to get a name change, but it is unclear the extent to which Mississippi would honor it.

In addition, it threatens to thrust Mississippians of all backgrounds into the epicenter of a constitutional crisis. The ruling and its rollout could call the 26th Amendment into question, which lowered the voting age to 18 after the mass conscription of young people during the Vietnam War. It also tests the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires states to respect the records-keeping of other states (such as name changes and marriage licenses); Mississippians’ 14th Amendment right to due process; and an individual’s First Amendment rights.

“Names are an incredibly important part of our identity,” the initial complaint says, which was filed on behalf of SBM and his parents. “A name is, at its simplest, an identifier of a unique person [...] At its most complex, a name is also an individual yet culturally bound tool of communication and self-expression.”

The ruling raises the stakes as SCOTUS contemplates United States v. Skrmetti in Washington, D.C., a case that could determine if a Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for trans youth—and similar laws in states around the country—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.