HELENA - A district court judge in Helena heard arguments Thursday afternoon from attorneys seeking a preliminary injunction on behalf of two transgender Montanans who argue that a rule from the state public health department preventing them from changing their government documents to denote their gender instead of their birth sex is unconstitutional.ACLU of Montana attorney Alex Rate told Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Mike Menahan that the Department of Public Health and Human Services rule finalized in February essentially prohibits transgender Montanans from changing the sex designations on their birth certificates.He argued that the state Motor Vehicle Division is not allowing the plaintiffs, Jessica Kalarchik and Jane Doe, to change their sex designations on their drivers licenses because they are unable to change those designations on their birth certificates in the first place, reports the Daily Montanan.Rate used the words of Missoula County District Court Judge Jason Marks when he struck down a bill to prohibit youth from receiving gender-affirming care in September 2023.The purported purpose given for these policies is disingenuous. It seems more likely that the policys purpose is to ban an outcome deemed undesirable by the State of Montana. This conduct is replete with animus towards transgender persons, Rate said, citing Markss order.The state, represented by the Attorney Generals Office, argued that sex and gender are not interchangeable, and that court precedent recognizes sex as a binary of male and female.The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an injunction barring DPHHS from enforcing its rule and the MVD from not changing sex designations on drivers licenses, which has not been introduced as a written policy but one which the plaintiffs attorneys say is being enforced on the ground.They are also seeking to certify a class of transgender Montanans in what they hope will become a class-action lawsuit protecting the rules from being enforced for all current and future transgender Montanans who want to change their birth certificates and IDs or drivers licenses.Marks said issuing a preliminary injunction would restore the status quo in place in 2017, when Montanans were allowed to change their sex designations without issue. He said that even though a 2021 law that was similar to the DPHHS rule finalized this year was struck down as unconstitutional, the department was in 2023 found to be in contempt of court for openly and repeatedly defying the injunction.And in February, the department moved ahead with the rule change after the Legislature passed a bill, Senate Bill 458, aiming to state in Montana law that there are exactly two sexes, male and female. DPHHS said the only changes to sex designations allowed would be to correct errors on birth certificates. A district court judge this past summer found Senate Bill 458 to be unconstitutional as well, though the state is appealing that decision.Rate told Menahan that backstory is key to proving that the State of Montana is targeting transgender people with the rule and discriminating against them in violation of the state Constitution, its equal protection clause, and the right to privacy it affords Montanans. He argued the state offered no compelling interest for the rule.The state says that this isnt speech at all, but rather a record. But that is a statement of your sex, and the state is forcing our clients to present their view of their sex, Rate said. The state cannot arbitrarily decide what is an individuals sex and force them to speak that into the world. That is the definition of compelled speech.Assistant Attorney General Alwyn Lansing argued on behalf of the state, telling Menahan that the plaintiffs were trying to get the court to make transgender people a protected class.To adopt plaintiffs argument would be to create a new protected class, which is gender identity, that is in direct conflict with Montana Supreme Court precedent. The Legislature is the only one who could do that, she said. The right to privacy does not include a right to replace an objective fact of biological sex on a government document with subjective gender identity.She also contended that since not all transgender Montanans are seeking to update their personal documents, siding with the plaintiffs would prescribe personal values of some onto the laws which govern all.Rate said the state could not rely on Senate Bill 458 because it is enjoined, and the expert testimony the plaintiffs submitted from two medical experts in the transgender field showed there is a strong relationship between sex and gender identity, and that disallowing that expression was harmful and discriminatory to transgender Montanans.Arguing as to why a class should be certified in the case, ACLU attorney Malita Picasso said state data showed at least 280 Montanans had sought to amend their birth certificates during the past seven years, at least 85 since 2022. She said certifying a class of transgender Montanans who currently or in the future may want to change their sex designations would ensure that any court decision would apply to all transgender Montanans, not just the current plaintiffs in the case.She also said that certifying a class for the case would prevent confusion should separate cases be filed in other Montana district courts and judges come to differing conclusions. Assistant Attorney General Thane Johnson told the court that whatever Menahan decides regarding the injunction would apply to the entire state of Montana, and he believed the plaintiffs did not meet all the necessary prongs to turn the case into a class-action suit.Picasso responded that the states record showed it would try to fight the changes even if an injunction was granted, however. She said that if Menahan issues an injunction and the two plaintiffs do get their documents changed, the state could then claim the case and injunction were moot because the plaintiffs had gotten the relief they had sought, then apply the same rules to other transgender Montanans.If the defendants would like to enter a stipulated agreement in which they, you know, say that they wont enforce it as to others, then I think that maybe we could reconsider, Picasso said. But at this stage, it seems pretty clear that were the injunction to be issued only as to the named plaintiffs, that the defendants would be arguing for that to be limited to just them.Menahan did not issue any orders from the bench Thursday and did not state when he might do so following the two-hour hearing.