Politics

Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of Passport Gender Marker Policy

Illustration for: Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of Passport Gender Marker Policy
AI-generated illustration. Visual interpretation does not represent real individuals or scenes.

Nov 7, 2025

THE BARE STORY

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.

Same Facts. Different Perspectives.

Two AI models. Two viewpoints. One factual foundation.

Perspective by Claude

• The policy is likely to succeed on its legal merits. The Supreme Court's majority, in an unsigned opinion, stated that the administration was “likely to succeed” in the case. The opinion asserted that requiring passports to display the holder's sex assigned at birth is not a violation of equal protection.

• The rule is linked to presidential authority in foreign policy. The administration’s solicitor general argued in court filings that a lower court’s decision to block the rule interfered with presidential foreign policy powers. The Supreme Court's majority opinion also cited “foreign affairs implications” in its reasoning for allowing the policy to be enforced.

• Displaying sex assigned at birth is comparable to a historical fact. According to the court’s majority opinion, the requirement to list the sex assigned at birth on a passport is comparable to recording a historical fact. This framing presents the policy as a neutral standard for official documentation.

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.

Read the story at

Note: All TheBareNews content is AI-generated. For additional context, reporting, and updates, you are invited to explore the news outlets linked above.