The BareStory
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to enforce a policy requiring U.S. passports to display the holder's sex assigned at birth. In a 6-3 decision, the court froze lower court orders that had blocked the rule, which also ends the availability of an "X" gender marker.
In an unsigned opinion, the court’s majority stated that the administration was “likely to succeed” on the merits of the case. The opinion asserted that displaying sex at birth is comparable to a historical fact and not a violation of equal protection, also citing “foreign affairs implications.” A dissenting opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the harms to transgender individuals from the policy outweigh the government's interest in its immediate implementation. Justice Jackson wrote that the policy invites “humiliating, additional scrutiny.”
The legal challenge was brought by several transgender and nonbinary individuals who claimed the policy is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and exposes them to harm. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the rule deprives them of safe travel and a usable form of identification. The policy reverses a previous rule that allowed for self-attestation of gender identity on passport applications.
The administration’s solicitor general had argued in court filings that a lower court interfered with presidential foreign policy powers. The ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project’s senior counsel called the decision a “heartbreaking setback,” claiming it would increase the risk of harassment and violence for transgender people. The court's ruling allows the policy to take effect while litigation continues in lower courts.
How it may affect me
As a U.S. reader:
• U.S. passport applications now require the holder's sex assigned at birth, removing the options for self-attestation or an "X" gender marker.
• Transgender travelers may face increased scrutiny or potential harm, as their passports will list their sex at birth, which might not match their identity.
• The policy is in effect now, but its long-term status is uncertain as legal challenges are still proceeding in lower courts.
