Oklahoma Supreme Court Answers Federal Court’s Questions in Birth Certificate Case

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has told a federal appeals court that state law does not allow changes to the sex designation on birth certificates, providing a legal interpretation for an ongoing challenge to Oklahoma’s policy.

The 6–3 ruling answers three questions submitted by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It does not decide the federal constitutional challenge.

The case involves three transgender plaintiffs who sought to change their Oklahoma birth certificates to match their gender identities. They obtained state court orders approving the changes, but the Oklahoma State Department of Health denied their applications, citing Gov. Kevin Stitt’s 2021 executive order.

The plaintiffs sued Stitt and state health officials in federal court.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Dustin Rowe said Oklahoma law permits only specifically authorized birth certificate amendments. The court concluded that the statute does not authorize changes to the sex designation and never has, including changes based on gender identity.

The majority acknowledged that the Health Department had previously approved such changes but said that practice could not override the law.

The interpretation matters because the plaintiffs challenged Stitt’s executive order rather than the constitutionality of the underlying statute. The opinion explains that overturning the executive order would still leave the statutory restriction in place, raising a question about whether the federal courts can provide the relief sought.

Justice James Combs, joined by Justice James Winchester, said the Oklahoma Supreme Court should have declined to answer the questions. He argued that the 10th Circuit could interpret the statute itself and cited a similar case in which the state court declined to intervene.

Their dissent focused on whether the court should answer the questions, rather than whether birth certificate changes should be permitted. Justice Noma Gurich also dissented.

The ruling supplies the state-law interpretation for the 10th Circuit to use as it considers the federal case.


Print pagePDF pageEmail page

*

Copyright © The McCarville Report