Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Passport Gender Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted former President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy preventing transgender and nonbinary Americans from selecting gender markers on their passports that differ from those listed on their birth certificates. The temporary ruling allows the administration’s directive to take effect while an ongoing lawsuit proceeds through the lower courts.

The decision marks another victory for Trump’s legal team in a series of emergency rulings that have supported his administration’s conservative social policies. The court’s three liberal justices dissented, warning that the decision could expose transgender individuals to increased discrimination and violence.

Court Backs Government in Interim Order

In a brief, unsigned opinion, the conservative-majority court stated that the policy “is not discriminatory” and compared displaying a passport holder’s sex at birth to noting their country of birth—both described as factual classifications rather than judgments about identity. The order effectively halts a lower court’s decision that had required the State Department to continue allowing applicants to choose male, female, or X gender markers on new and renewed passports.

The ruling enables the government to reinstate passport designations based solely on biological sex, as reflected in birth certificates. The court emphasized that such documentation falls under the executive branch’s authority over foreign affairs, suggesting that uniformity in identification standards serves administrative consistency and diplomatic coordination.

Dissent Highlights Human Rights Concerns

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the dissenters, criticized the majority’s decision as lacking adequate justification and warned it would cause “immediate infliction of injury.” She argued that the rule, derived from a Trump executive order describing transgender identity as “false” and “corrosive,” would endanger individuals by outing them against their will.

Jackson’s dissent cited testimonies from transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs who reported experiences of harassment, invasive searches, and even sexual assault during security checks due to mismatched identification. She noted that the new restriction reverses progress made under previous administrations to ensure safe and accurate identification for gender-diverse individuals.

Policy Stems from Trump’s Executive Order

The policy originates from an executive order issued by Trump in January of his second term, declaring that federal agencies must recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biological classification. The directive instructed departments to revise identification protocols, leading the State Department to withdraw the option for gender marker flexibility introduced during the Biden administration.

Under the Biden-era policy, Americans could select male, female, or X gender markers without medical documentation, aligning the United States with several countries that adopted inclusive identification systems. That rule was suspended after the Trump administration challenged its legality.

Legal and Social Repercussions

Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), condemned the Supreme Court’s order, warning that it represents a setback for gender rights and personal freedom. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk of harassment and violence,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves.”

Plaintiffs in the ongoing lawsuit have argued that the policy not only endangers travelers but also undermines the accuracy of official documents. They maintain that gender markers reflecting lived identity are essential for personal safety, especially when traveling internationally.

Historical Context of Passport Gender Markers

Sex markers first appeared on U.S. passports in the 1970s. In the early 1990s, applicants could change the listed sex with medical documentation verifying gender transition. The Biden administration’s 2021 update removed such medical requirements, allowing for self-designated markers, including an “X” option for nonbinary individuals. That policy had been celebrated as a major step toward inclusion and administrative equality.

Trump’s reinstatement of a binary-only system follows broader efforts to restrict recognition of transgender identities in federal policies, echoing earlier moves to bar transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military—another decision the Supreme Court allowed to stand.

Administration’s Reaction and Political Response

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly welcomed the decision, calling it a “victory for common sense and President Trump.” She said the administration remains committed to “eliminating woke gender ideology from the federal government.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi similarly praised the outcome, asserting that “there are two sexes” and that the Justice Department would continue defending what she described as a “simple truth” in court.

The ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s growing role in shaping social and identity-based policy through emergency orders—decisions often issued without full oral arguments or written opinions. Since Trump’s second term began, the court has granted roughly two dozen such temporary orders in his favor, spanning issues from immigration to healthcare.

Broader Implications for Identity Rights

Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights warn that the decision could embolden similar restrictions across federal and state agencies, particularly concerning identification documents, healthcare access, and civil protections. Legal experts note that the case may eventually return to the Supreme Court for a full hearing once the lower court proceedings conclude.

Human rights organizations and international observers have also expressed concern, pointing out that the ruling diverges from a growing global trend toward recognizing gender diversity in legal identification systems. Countries such as Canada, Germany, and New Zealand currently offer nonbinary gender options on passports.

While the order does not represent a final ruling on the constitutionality of the policy, it allows its enforcement to proceed immediately—signaling a potential long-term shift in U.S. identification policy if the legal challenges fail.