Transgender Passport Rights: US Supreme Court Backs Trump-Era Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a major policy shift on passport gender markers. The conservative-majority court ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s request. This decision impacts thousands of transgender and nonbinary Americans. It allows enforcement of a policy requiring passports to reflect sex assigned at birth.

This move halts a lower court’s order that protected self-identification. The policy reversal ends a decades-old State Department practice. According to Reuters, the court’s 6-3 decision is a significant victory for the administration’s social agenda.

A Swift Reversal of Established Practice

The State Department’s rules had been evolving for over thirty years. Since 1992, it allowed corrected passport markers with medical documentation. Under President Biden, the process became self-certified with an “X” option added.

The new policy stems from a January executive order. That order stated the U.S. would recognize only two sexes. It defined sex as determined by biology and birth certificates. The State Department then revised its passport rules to match this directive.

This creates immediate legal limbo for applicants. People seeking new or renewed passports now face strict binary classification. The ruling came through the court’s emergency “shadow docket.” It allows enforcement while lawsuits proceed in lower courts.

Part of a Broader Legal and Cultural Conflict

This decision is not an isolated event. It reflects a sustained judicial trend. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has repeatedly backed this administration’s social policies. This includes rulings on military service and research funding.

The policy was challenged as unconstitutional discrimination. A Boston-based federal judge had blocked it in April. Judge Julia Kobick found it rooted in “irrational prejudice.” She said it likely violated Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.

The impact extends beyond travel documents. It signals a hardening federal stance on gender recognition. Advocates warn it legitimizes the exclusion of transgender people from public life. It also creates potential conflicts with states that recognize a third gender.

The Supreme Court’s action marks a pivotal moment for transgender rights in America. This passport policy shift restricts a fundamental document of freedom. It underscores a rapid recalibration of federal recognition for gender identity.

Info at your fingertips

Q1: What did the Supreme Court actually decide?

The Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce its passport policy immediately. This means the government can deny requests for “X” markers or gender mismatches on passports. The underlying lawsuit continues, but the policy is now in effect.

Q2: What was the policy before this ruling?

Since 2021, the State Department let applicants self-select “M,” “F,” or “X” without medical proof. Before that, a process with documentation existed since 1992. The new policy reverts to using only sex assigned at birth.

Q3: How does this affect current passport holders?

Those with already-issued passports using “X” or a corrected marker retain them for now. The immediate impact is on new applications and renewals. Renewing a passport may now require reverting to the birth-assigned sex marker.

Q4: Can this decision be appealed?

Yes. The legal challenge continues in lower federal courts. However, the Supreme Court’s order allows the policy during that litigation. A final ruling on the policy’s constitutionality is likely years away.

Q5: Why is the State Department involved in this issue?

The State Department issues U.S. passports. It sets the rules for what information they contain. This includes defining the legal requirements for the “sex” field on the travel document.

Q6: Are other forms of federal ID affected?

This ruling specifically concerns U.S. passports. However, it establishes a precedent the administration may apply elsewhere. Policies for Social Security records or other federal IDs could face similar legal challenges.