In a recent statement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that state agencies should refrain from honoring court orders that allow changes to the gender markers on documents such as driver’s licenses and birth certificates. Furthermore, Paxton suggested that any alterations made to these documents based on such court orders in the past should be reversed.

The Authority of the AG’s Opinion

While Paxton, as attorney general, does not possess the authority to mandate actions for other state agencies, his opinion carries weight and may influence future executive actions or legislative proposals.

Traditionally, Texas agencies have accepted certified court orders for amending a person’s gender representation on governmental documents. For instance, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) historically accepted these orders for birth certificates, while the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) allowed changes on driver’s licenses when accompanied by amended birth certificates or court records.

Impact of the Opinion

This shift in policy gained attention after the DPS halted processing these changes in August and subsequently sought Paxton’s formal guidance. Legal experts highlighting the implications of the AG’s stance noted that it does not create enforceable law but serves as a declaration of how Paxton believes existing law should be interpreted.

“He purports to order things he has no authority to do,” said Ian Pittman, an attorney representing transgender clients in Texas. “It’s red meat for the base, but it doesn’t legally change anything.”

Despite his opinion’s limitations, prior actions taken by state leadership, such as Governor Abbott’s executive orders, suggest that Paxton’s opinion could lead to tangible consequences for transgender individuals seeking documentation changes.

Historical Context and Precedents

This isn’t the first instance where Paxton has expressed a controversial opinion regarding the rights of transgender individuals. In 2022, he stated that gender-affirming care could be construed as child abuse under Texas law, prompting investigations into families supporting transgender children. Although the Texas Supreme Court ruled against the executive overreach, the investigations continued.

Reactions and Concerns

Brad Pritchett, the interim CEO of Equality Texas, expressed concerns regarding the safety of nearly 100,000 transgender Texans if state agencies comply with Paxton’s guidance. “The trans community in Texas is scared,” Pritchett remarked, emphasizing that many individuals are merely trying to align their identification documents with their lived experiences.

Future Implications

The implications of this opinion might lead to complexity and challenges for DSHS and DPS as they navigate potential orders to amend records based on Paxton’s directive. Pittman pointed out that the administrative processes for identifying and changing records could be cumbersome should these agencies be forced to comply.

A significant shift in operational protocols for these agencies would require thorough examination, as the traditional administrative practice may not accommodate such unprecedented demands.