OKLAHOMA CITY –
Attorney General Gentner Drummond has submitted a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that Oklahoma’s policy of recording and maintaining sex on birth certificates is “clearly” constitutional.
What is the Oklahoma Attorney General’s birth certificate petition about?
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit Court ruling involving the state’s policy on recording biological sex on birth certificates.
In November 2021, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an executive order instructing the Oklahoma State Department of Health to stop allowing Oklahomans to change the gender on their birth certificate.
What is Oklahoma’s current policy on birth certificates?
Oklahoma’s laws require birth certificates to record the biological sex of a newborn as a permanent, historical fact.
The state does not permit altering this designation to reflect gender identity at a later time. According to Drummond’s brief, this policy aims to preserve the integrity and accuracy of vital statistics.
What triggered this legal conflict?
In June 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled against Oklahoma, finding the state’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court concluded that Oklahoma’s approach discriminates based on transgender status. In contrast, a Sixth Circuit ruling upheld a similar policy in Tennessee, creating a circuit split that Drummond is asking the Supreme Court to resolve.
What is Oklahoma’s argument for not allowing changes to birth certificates?
Drummond argues that Oklahoma’s policy is constitutional and grounded in several legitimate state interests, including:
• Maintaining Accurate Records: The state asserts that birth certificates serve as vital historical records of biological facts.
• Protecting Vital Statistics: These documents are critical for public health and demographic research.
• Consistency in Law: The policy reflects Oklahoma’s commitment to classifying biological sex consistently in state records.
Drummond contends that the Tenth Circuit misapplied precedents, including the landmark Bostock v. Clayton County case, and improperly extended its logic to equal protection claims.
What is the significance of this case?
The outcome could have nationwide implications, potentially setting a precedent for how states address requests to amend birth certificates and how courts interpret protections for transgender individuals under the Equal Protection Clause.
What’s next?
The Supreme Court will decide whether to take up the case. If granted, the Court’s ruling could clarify the extent to which states must accommodate changes to gender markers on official documents.
For more details, you can refer to the Attorney General’s petition
