In a pivotal ruling affecting transgender and nonbinary Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to enforce a policy requiring that the sex designation on U.S. passports match a traveler’s biological sex at birth. The decision lifts a previous federal court injunction that had temporarily blocked the policy nationwide, signaling another significant development in the ongoing legal battles over gender identity rights and federal documentation policies.
The ruling marks a rare emergency success for the Trump administration on the Supreme Court’s docket, following other cases involving transgender rights and state-level regulations.
Background: Passport Gender Policy Changes Over Time
The inclusion of sex markers on U.S. passports dates back to 1976, with the State Department later allowing applicants in 1992 to change their sex designation with medical documentation. In 2021, the Biden administration introduced a landmark policy permitting individuals to select an “X” gender marker, a crucial option for nonbinary and intersex Americans seeking official recognition.
Following President Trump’s return to office in early 2025, both policies were reversed. The new directive required passports to reflect only biological sex and eliminated the option for “X” markers. Legal challenges quickly followed, arguing that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and endangered transgender and nonbinary travelers.
Supreme Court’s Decision and Reasoning
In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed with the policy, stating:
“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”
While the order permits the policy temporarily, it does not constitute a final ruling on the broader constitutional questions. The Court’s action ensures that the policy is enforceable while ongoing lawsuits continue in the lower courts.
Dissenting Opinions Highlight Civil Rights Concerns
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, strongly dissented, emphasizing the policy’s harmful impact:
“Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern… This court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate—or, really, any—justification.”
Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, condemned the decision, calling it a “heartbreaking setback” for freedom of identity and safety for transgender and nonbinary Americans.
“Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
Legal Battles and Administrative Defense
The policy’s initial challenge came in Massachusetts, where U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick blocked nationwide enforcement, citing the Equal Protection Clause. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, noting that the government had not adequately addressed concerns about constitutional violations.
The Trump administration, through an emergency Supreme Court appeal, argued that the policy is neutral because it applies equally to all citizens. The Justice Department stated:
“A policy does not discriminate based on sex if it applies equally to each sex without treating any member of one sex worse than a similarly situated member of the other.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the ruling as a victory for biological sex recognition, emphasizing the administration’s continued commitment to this definition in federal policy.
Broader Implications for LGBTQ Rights
This decision follows the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling allowing the Trump administration to reinstate a ban on transgender military service members in May 2025. Both rulings underscore the Court’s willingness to defer to the executive branch on controversial gender-related policies, at least temporarily, while full legal challenges play out.
Experts warn that the ruling could impact travel safety, international recognition of gender identity, and access to official documentation for transgender and nonbinary Americans. Advocates stress that these restrictions may expose individuals to increased harassment and discrimination abroad.
What This Means Going Forward
While the Supreme Court’s order does not settle the broader constitutional questions, it reaffirms the federal government’s authority to define passport sex markers for now. The ongoing lawsuits in lower courts will ultimately determine whether this policy can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
For travelers, the decision means that passports will now reflect biological sex only, temporarily eliminating the “X” gender marker option, and signaling a shift in federal recognition of gender identity.
key takeaways:
Supreme Court allows Trump-era passport policy requiring sex markers to match biological sex at birth, lifting a lower court injunction.
Nonbinary “X” gender marker eliminated, reversing protections introduced under the Biden administration.
Dissenting justices and LGBTQ advocates warn the policy increases risks of harassment and violates equal protection principles.
Policy applies temporarily while ongoing lawsuits in lower courts continue to challenge its constitutionality.
Part of broader trend: follows Supreme Court rulings permitting Trump administration restrictions on transgender military service and other gender-related policies.