The Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday granted the Donald Trump-led administration permission to enforce a policy that prevents transgender and nonbinary individuals from selecting sex markers on U.S. passports that align with their gender identity. The decision comes while a lawsuit challenging the policy proceeds.
In a short, unsigned order, the Court paused a lower-court injunction that had required the U.S. Department of State to issue passports with “M,” “F” or “X” sex markers reflective of gender identity for new or renewed applications. With the stay in place, the government may now enforce a rule limiting designations to male or female, as assigned at birth.
Government’s rationale and dissenting objections
The conservative majority concluded that the policy is not discriminatory. “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal-protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the Court wrote. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”
By contrast, the Court’s three liberal justices issued a dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that requiring transgender people to carry passports listing sex assigned at birth makes them vulnerable to “increased violence, harassment, and discrimination.” She criticized the policy as stemming from an executive order that described transgender identity as “false” and “corrosive.”
Background and legal history
The policy traces to Executive Order 14168, signed by Trump in January 2025, which stated the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” defined by biological classification at birth. Under that order, the State Department stopped offering the “X” marker and removed gender-self-identification from passport forms.
A federal judge in Boston had ruled in June that the policy likely violated the constitution, specifically, equal-protection guarantees and the Administrative Procedure Act, and temporarily blocked the policy for certain applicants.
Impacts and concerns for LGBTQ+ community
Advocates warn that the Court’s decision is a serious setback for transgender and nonbinary Americans’ rights and safety. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) senior counsel Jon Davidson said: “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence.”
Travel documents that do not reflect a person’s gender identity can lead to difficulties at checkpoints, confusion in foreign travel, and heightened vulnerability to invasive examinations. The dissent highlighted real-world harms including women being issued passports with male markers despite their identity and legal documents indicating otherwise.
The case will continue through the court system as the underlying lawsuit proceeds. Meanwhile, the policy remains in effect under the Supreme Court’s stay. Legal advocates are monitoring how the government implements the change and how affected individuals fare while applications are processed under the revised guidelines.
