The United States Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration’s policy requiring all new passports to display an individual’s biological sex at birth to remain in effect, pausing a lower court order that had blocked this policy change. The decision, issued on a Thursday, reflects the conservative-majority court’s stance as it weighs the broader legal battle over transgender rights and gender identity policies initiated during the Trump presidency.
At the heart of the dispute is a policy shift instituted by former President Donald Trump on his first day in office. Trump signed an executive order that recognized only two sexes—male and female—based strictly on an individual’s biological sex as recorded at birth. This resulted in U.S. passports listing only “male” or “female,” eliminating the option to choose a gender identity different from one’s birth sex. This policy reversed the approach taken during the Obama administration and maintained under President Joe Biden, which had allowed passport holders to self-select their gender designation. The Biden administration had also introduced an “X” option, representing a nonbinary gender, on passports issued by the State Department.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling halts the enforcement of a Massachusetts federal judge’s order that had blocked the Trump-era policy. Judge Julia Kobick, appointed by Biden, had ruled in April that the policy was likely discriminatory against transgender individuals, suggesting that it was based on “irrational prejudice” and violated their equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. In June, Judge Kobick formally blocked the Trump administration’s policy from being enforced.
Despite this, the Supreme Court’s temporary stay means that, for now, new and renewed U.S. passports will continue to display an individual’s biological sex at birth, rather than allowing self-selected gender identities. The Court’s unsigned order stated that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth.” The Court further stated that the government’s policy “is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.” The justices indicated that the administration is “likely to succeed on the merits,” signaling a strong possibility that the Court may ultimately uphold the policy when the case is fully heard.
The decision was not unanimous. The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticizing the conservative majority. In her dissent, Justice Jackson accused the Court of “senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome” and described the ruling as part of an “unfortunate pattern” of decisions that allow harm to transgender individuals without adequate justification. She warned that the Court’s ruling “paves the way for the immediate infliction of injury,” and expressed her refusal to accept what she called a “pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion.”
The plaintiffs challenging the policy include transgender activist Ash Lazarus Orr, along with four other transgender Americans and two nonbinary individuals. They argue that restricting the gender field on passports to biological sex not only amounts to harassment but also potentially endangers transgender people by stigmatizing their identities and exposing them to discrimination and violence. The case has drawn broader attention to the struggles of transgender and nonbinary Americans seeking recognition and respect for their gender identities in official documents.
The controversy over passport gender designations is part of a larger rollback of transgender rights and diversity initiatives under the Trump administration, which President Biden’s administration has sought to reverse or modify. Since 1992, the State Department had allowed individuals to have passport sex designations differing from their sex assigned at birth, provided they submitted medical documentation. The Trump administration’s executive order eliminated this option, tightening restrictions on gender identity recognition in official documents.
The policy reversal has been met with criticism from prominent transgender figures. Shortly after the Trump policy was implemented, actor and transgender advocate Hunter Schafer publicly expressed shock and frustration after receiving a passport listing her gender as male rather than female. Schafer, known for her role in the television series “Euphoria,” said the policy “makes life a little harder” for transgender individuals, even if it does not change their identities.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a series of rulings that have favored the Trump administration’s positions on transgender issues and broader cultural debates around gender ideology. In May, the Court allowed the administration to temporarily enforce its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military—a policy also initiated by Trump. Additionally, the administration has pursued policies restricting certain healthcare treatments for transgender minors and barring transgender women from participating in women’s