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)