Saba v. Cuomo

Background

Sander Saba, a nonbinary transgender New York resident, sought a New York driver’s license with an “X” gender marker. Saba’s New York birth certificate and Pennsylvania driver’s license reflected an “X” marker. Saba alleged that New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) used an application requiring applicants to select either “Male” or “Female,” preventing Saba from obtaining a New York license through the ordinary process without inaccurately identifying their gender.

Saba sued Andrew M. Cuomo, in his official capacity as Governor of New York, and Mark J. F. Shroeder, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. The complaint asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Saba requested a declaration, an order blocking enforcement of the policy, and damages.

The defendants’ jurisdictional arguments

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the case was moot, meaning that later events had eliminated the dispute, because the DMV had offered Saba a manual process for obtaining an “X” license and was working on a computer-system change that would eventually permit an automated process. They also argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred relief against state officials based on past conduct.

The defendants did not challenge Saba’s claims on their merits at this stage. The court therefore addressed whether it had authority to hear the dispute, not whether the DMV policy was lawful.

Mootness

The court denied dismissal on mootness grounds. The DMV’s planned computer-system changes did not moot the case because the challenged application had not yet changed. The court also held that the DMV’s manual offer, made after the lawsuit began, did not satisfy the defendants’ heavy burden under the voluntary-cessation doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a defendant from ending challenged conduct temporarily to avoid judicial review unless it is clear that the conduct will not reasonably recur and that its effects have been completely and permanently eliminated.

The court recognized that the manual process would provide Saba with an “X” license and relief from having to certify on the application that they were male or female. But the DMV’s existing system would still assign a binary gender designation to Saba’s internal record to generate a motorist identification number, and that information could be available to certain third parties. The court concluded that the defendants had not shown that the challenged policy could not recur or that all of its effects had been eliminated.

Eleventh Amendment

The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents federal courts from awarding relief against a state or state officials acting in their official capacities. An exception allows suits for prospective relief—relief aimed at stopping an ongoing or threatened violation of federal law—under a doctrine associated with Ex parte Young.

The court held that Saba’s claims for money damages under the New York State Human Rights Law and § 1983 were barred because those claims sought compensation for past conduct. The court held, however, that the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were not barred. Those claims sought prospective relief concerning a policy that the court found could possibly be enforced against Saba again and whose effects allegedly continued.

Disposition

The court’s order states: “Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages but is otherwise DENIED.” The court did not decide whether New York’s gender-marker policy violated the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1983, or the New York State Human Rights Law.