page_title: Circumcision and law
section_title: United States
hierarchical_section_title: Circumcision and law / Modern law / United States
caption_attribution_description: English: Intact America logo.
context_page_description: Laws restricting, regulating, or banning circumcision, some dating back to ancient times, have been enacted in many countries and communities. In modern states, circumcision is generally presumed to be legal, but laws pertaining to assault or child custody have been applied in cases involving circumcision. There are currently no states that unequivocally ban infant male circumcision for non-therapeutic reasons. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision of children, proponents of laws in favor of the procedure often point to the rights of the parents or practitioners, namely the right of freedom of religion. Those against the procedure point to the boy's right of freedom from religion. In several court cases, judges have pointed to the irreversible nature of the act, the grievous harm to the boy's body, and the right to self-determination, and bodily integrity.
context_section_description: Circumcision of adults who grant personal informed consent for the surgical operation is legal.
  In the United States, non-therapeutic circumcision of male children has long been assumed to be lawful in every jurisdiction provided that one parent grants surrogate informed consent. Adler (2013) has recently challenged the validity of this assumption. As with every country, doctors who circumcise children must take care that all applicable rules regarding informed consent and safety are satisfied.
  While anti-circumcision groups have occasionally proposed legislation banning non-therapeutic child circumcision, it has not been supported in any legislature. After a failed attempt to adopt a local ordinance banning circumcision on a San Francisco ballot, the state of California enacted in October 2011 a law protecting circumcision from local attempts to ban the practice.
  In 2012, New York City required those performing metzitzah b'peh, the oral suction of the open circumcision wound required by Hasidim, to obey stringent consent requirements, including documentation. Agudath Israel of America and other Jewish groups have planned to sue the city in response.
  Disputes between parents
  Occasionally the courts are asked to make a ruling when parents cannot agree on whether or not to circumcise a child.
  In January 2001 a dispute between divorcing parents in New Jersey was resolved when the mother, who sought to have the boy circumcised withdrew her request. The boy had experienced two instances of foreskin inflammation and she wanted to have him circumcised. The father, who had experienced a traumatic circumcision as a child objected and they turned to the courts for a decision. The Medical Society of New Jersey and the Urological Society of New Jersey both opposed any court ordered medical treatment. As the parties came to an agreement, no precedent was set. In June 2001 a Nevada court settled a dispute over circumcision between two parents but put a strict gag order on the terms of the settlement. In July 2001 a dispute between parents in Kansas over circumcision was resolved when the mother's request to have the infant circumcised was withdrawn. In this case the father opposed circumcision while the mother asserted that not circumcising the child was against her religious beliefs. (The woman's pastor had stated that circumcision was "important" but was not necessary for salvation.) On 24 July 2001 the parents reached agreement that the infant would not be circumcised.
  On 14 July 2004 a mother appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court to prevent the circumcision of her son after a county court and the Court of Appeals had denied her a writ of prohibition. However, in early August 2004, before the Supreme Court had given its ruling, the father, who had custody of the boy, had him circumcised.
  In October 2006 a judge in Chicago granted an injunction blocking the circumcision of a 9-year-old boy. In granting the injunction the judge stated that "the boy could decide for himself whether to be circumcised when he turns 18."
  In November 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments from a divorced Oregon couple over the circumcision of their son. The father wanted his son, who turned 13 on 2 March 2008, to be circumcised in accordance with the father's religious views; the child's mother opposes the procedure.  The parents dispute whether the boy is in favor of the procedure. A group opposed to circumcision filed briefs in support of the mother's position, while some Jewish groups filed a brief in support of the father. On 25 January 2008, the Court returned the case to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the child agrees or objects to the proposed circumcision. The father appealed to the US Supreme Court to allow him to have his son circumcised but his appeal was rejected. The case then returned to the trial court. When the trial court interviewed the couple's son, now 14 years old, the boy stated that he did not want to be circumcised. This also provided the necessary circumstances to allow the boy to change residence 
caption: Intact America is one of the groups campaigning for a ban on non-medical nonconsensual circumcision of minors.
exif: {"Image Tag 0x000B": "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384", "Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image Software": "Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384", "Image DateTime": "2018:06:26 14:46:12", "Image ExifOffset": "2242", "Image Padding": "[]", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "96", "Thumbnail YResolution": "96", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "4516", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "6193", "EXIF DateTimeOriginal": "2018:06:26 14:44:21", "EXIF DateTimeDigitized": "2018:06:26 14:44:21", "EXIF SubSecTimeOriginal": "74", "EXIF SubSecTimeDigitized": "74", "EXIF ColorSpace": "sRGB", "EXIF Padding": "[]"}