The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s decision requiring U.S. passports to display a traveler’s biological sex, marking a significant setback for transgender and nonbinary Americans who believe this policy infringes upon their constitutional rights. This ruling further underscores the ongoing legal battles surrounding LGBTQ rights, particularly those affecting the transgender community.
In an unsigned order, the court stated that indicating passport holders’ biological sex is akin to recording their country of birth, highlighting a focus on historical facts rather than differential treatment. This decision continues a trend of favoring the Trump administration’s policies affecting LGBTQ individuals.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, issued a dissent, criticizing the court for what she described as a troubling pattern of ignoring equitable outcomes in favor of predetermined policies. Jackson emphasized the harmful impacts of such rulings, implying that the court’s choices may inflict immediate harm without just cause.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has actively contested the policy, expressed profound disappointment with the ruling, labeling it a “heartbreaking setback” that risks endangering the safety of transgender individuals. Jon Davidson, a senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, articulated concerns that forcing transgender individuals to carry passports that disclose their biological sex heightens their susceptibility to harassment and violence.
Historically, U.S. passports included a sex marker since 1976; however, changes in policy have evolved over the years. In 1992, the option was introduced for citizens to select a sex marker different from that assigned at birth provided certain medical criteria were met. Under President Biden, the introduction of an “X” marker for gender non-conforming individuals was implemented in 2021. In sharp contrast, the Trump administration swiftly reversed this policy after taking office, mandating that passports reflect sex assigned at birth and eliminating the “X” option.
Legal challenges followed swiftly, resulting in a federal judge in Massachusetts blocking the enforcement of the policy earlier this year. The judge deemed that classifying applicants based on sex warranted heightened judicial scrutiny, a ruling upheld by a federal appeals court. Despite this, the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court sought to reinstate the policy, arguing that it does not discriminate as it applies uniformly to all.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated this latest Supreme Court ruling as the administration’s 24th victory, emphasizing a commitment to maintaining binary definitions of sex. Further, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly hailed the decision as a triumph for pragmatism and an affirmation of President Trump’s commitment to addressing so-called “woke gender ideology.”
While this ruling is significant, it does not conclude the ongoing legal discussions surrounding these policies, as the battles over rights and definitions for transgender individuals continue in various courts. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions illustrate the contentious landscape of LGBTQ rights in America, as legal interpretations and political ideologies collide.