Chicago V Wilson

Sarah
D

City
of
Chicago
v.
Wallace
Wilson
and
Kim
Kimberley Illinois
Supreme
Court,
1978 Facts

Defendants
Wallace
Wilson
and
Kim
Kimberly
were
arrested
in
February
 1974.
Defendant
Wilson
was
wearing
a
dress,
a
fur
coat,
nylon
stockings
 and
a
black
wig;
Kimberly
was
wearing
a
pants
suit,
high‐heeled
shoes
and
 cosmetic
makeup.
The
defendants
were
taken
to
the
police
station
and
 required
to
pose
for
pictures
at
various
stages
of
undress.
Both
were
 wearing
brassieres
and
garter
belts;
both
had
male
genitals.
At
trial,
the
 defendants
testiLied
that
they
were
transsexuals
and,
at
the
time
of
their
 arrests,
undergoing
psychiatric
therapy
in
preparation
for
sexual
 reassignment
operations,
therapy
that
required
them
to
wear
female
 clothing
and
adopt
a
female
life‐style.
Both
were
convicted
and
Lined
$100
 each
under
Section
192‐8
of
the
State
Code.

Question(s)

1.
Is
the
statute,
Section
192‐8
of
the
Code,
unconstitutional
and,
thus,
 invalid?
 2.
Did
the
arrest
infringe
upon
the
liberty
interest
of
the
defendants?

Answer(s)

1.
No 2.
Yes

Reasons


Justice
Thomas
J.
Moran State
Interest,
Precedent Richards
v.
Thurston One’s
choice
of
appearance
is
not
considered
a
“fundamental”
right,
 though,
the
State
is
not
relieved
from
showing
some
justiLication
for
the
 intrusion.
The
degree
of
protection
to
be
accorded
with
an
individual’s
 choice
of
appearance
is
dependent
upon
the
context
in
which
the
right
is
 exerted.
(1428) State
Interest On
record,
the
city
provided
no
evidence
to
support
their
reasons
for
the
 total
ban
against
cross‐dressing
in
public.
If
the
court
assumes
that
the
 ordinance
is,
as
the
city
claims,
directed
toward
curbing
criminal
activity,
 “the
city
has
failed
to
demonstrate
any
justiLication
for
infringing
upon
the
 defendants’
choice
of
public
dress
under
the
circumstances
of
this
 case.”
(1429) State
Interest There
is
no
evidence
that
cross‐dressing,
when
done
as
a
part
of
a
 preoperative
therapy
program
or
otherwise,
is,
in
and
of
itself,
harmful
to
 society.
(1429)