Supreme Court lets President Trump block transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport sex markers

-SEB Editorial-

A Judicial Shift on Identity-Supreme Court Backs Trump Passport Policy

In a landmark decision that has reignited debates over civil liberties and gender identity, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump’s administration the authority to enforce a controversial policy that blocks transgender and nonbinary individuals from selecting passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.

This ruling effectively reverses a progressive measure introduced during the Biden administration, which had allowed applicants to choose “X” as a gender marker or self-select male or female without medical documentation.

The unsigned order from the conservative-majority court asserts that listing a passport holder’s sex assigned at birth does not violate equal protection principles, likening it to the inclusion of one’s country of birth, both being historical facts, according to the court. However, the decision was not unanimous.

The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warning that the policy could cause “imminent, concrete injury” to transgender individuals while offering no evidence of harm to the government if the policy were temporarily blocked.

Since 1992, the State Department had permitted applicants in certain cases to choose a gender marker that did not correspond with their birth sex. The Biden-era reforms in 2021 expanded this flexibility by introducing the “X” option and removing the requirement for medical proof of gender transition.

The Trump administration’s rollback, announced on his first day in office, mandates that passports reflect the sex assigned at birth, regardless of medical transition or personal identity.

Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the policy, stating that it aligns with the administration’s belief in a binary understanding of sex.

Critics, however, argue that the move is a regressive step that undermines the rights and dignity of transgender and nonbinary Americans. Jon Davidson, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, described the ruling as a “heartbreaking setback” and accused the administration of fueling hostility against transgender people.

The policy has already had tangible consequences. Ashton Orr, a transgender man from West Virginia and the lead plaintiff in the case, was denied a male sex marker on his passport despite his transition.

A federal judge in Massachusetts had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing the use of “X” and self-selected markers. That decision was upheld by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to pause the ruling during ongoing litigation.

This Supreme Court decision marks a significant shift in how gender identity is recognized in federal documentation. It raises profound questions about the balance between administrative authority and individual rights, and whether the government’s definition of identity should override personal truth.

As legal battles continue, the ruling stands as a stark reminder of the power of judicial interpretation in shaping the lived realities of marginalized communities.