The justices held that Oklahoma law has never authorized the changes, despite years of Health Department practice allowing them under court orders.
OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state law prohibits changes to the sex designation on Oklahoma birth certificates, including changes sought by transgender people to match their gender identity.
Answering three questions submitted by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the state court held in a 6-3 decision that Oklahoma’s birth certificate amendment law has never authorized those changes. The majority concluded that the Oklahoma State Department of Health’s previous practice of making changes under state court orders could not override the law.
The majority held that neither state law nor the department’s administrative rules authorize changing the sex designation on a birth certificate.
Other birth certificate changes are allowed, including names and paternity. The court said amendments are limited to those permitted by law or the department’s rules.
A practice followed for years
According to the opinion, some people began obtaining state court orders around 2007 directing the Health Department to amend their birth certificates to reflect their gender identity.
The practice continued with little public attention until 2021, when the department entered a settlement allowing a birth certificate with a gender-neutral designation.
Gov. Kevin Stitt responded with an executive order directing the department to stop making amendments inconsistent with state law. He also called on lawmakers to clarify that changes involving sex or gender, including a nonbinary designation, were contrary to Oklahoma law.
In 2022, lawmakers required amended birth certificates to carry either a male or female designation and prohibited nonbinary designations.
A further amendment in May 2026 required amended certificates to contain an accurate biological sex designation as identified at birth and expressly prohibited changing it to display gender identity.
The majority held that the restrictions on permissible amendments dated to the law’s enactment in 1963. Neither the earlier law nor its subsequent amendments authorized sex designation changes, the court said.
“No longstanding agency practice can alter the statute’s plain text or effectively rewrite what the Legislature enacted,” the majority wrote.
The opinion does not direct the department to reverse changes made to previously amended certificates.
Why a federal court sought answers
Tuesday’s decision arose from a federal lawsuit brought by three transgender people: Rowan Fowler, Allister Hall and Carter Ray.
Each obtained a state court order directing that their birth certificate be amended. The Health Department denied their applications, citing Stitt’s executive order.
They sued Stitt and state health officials in federal court, arguing that the refusals violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process.
The federal district court dismissed the lawsuit. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of the due process claim but allowed the equal protection claim to proceed.
The U.S. Supreme Court later vacated that appellate judgment and directed the 10th Circuit to reconsider the case in light of its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s restrictions on certain medical treatments for transgender minors.
During that reconsideration, the 10th Circuit asked Oklahoma’s Supreme Court three questions about what Oklahoma law permits.
The state justices answered that the statute prohibits sex designation changes, has never permitted them and has never authorized changes based on gender identity.
Those answers are about state law. The Oklahoma court did not decide whether the challenged policy violates the U.S. Constitution or dismiss the federal lawsuit.
Its interpretation could nevertheless affect whether the plaintiffs can continue their challenge in federal court. The majority noted that they challenged Stitt’s executive order but did not challenge the constitutionality of the underlying law.
If state law independently prohibits the changes, overturning the executive order would not provide the relief they seek. That raises a question about their standing — whether a favorable ruling could remedy their alleged injury.
The federal court must determine what follows from the state court’s answers.
Dissent questions the court’s involvement
Justice Douglas Combs, joined by Justice James Winchester, argued that the Oklahoma court should have declined to answer the questions.
Combs cited the court’s decision last year to decline certified questions in a federal challenge involving restrictions on teaching race and gender. He argued that the federal court could interpret the birth certificate law itself.
Justice Noma Gurich also dissented but did not join Combs’ written opinion.
