The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to enforce a policy mandating that U.S. passports list a traveler’s sex as assigned at birth, based on biological characteristics.
On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that the U.S. government would recognize only two sexes, effectively erasing transgender identity. The order, which pledged to uphold “the biological reality of sex,” directed the State Department to revise its passport policies to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”
In response, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered State Department staff to freeze all passport applications featuring an “X” gender marker, as well as any requests to change gender markers on existing passports.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued over the policy in February, arguing it violated transgender Americans’ right to equal protection and the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies create or change regulations.
Plaintiffs also argued that the policy effectively “outs” them as transgender, exposing them to potential harassment, violence, or even imprisonment if their gender identity or presentation doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth.
In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, of Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the State Department from rejecting applications by six transgender and nonbinary Americans who sued the Trump administration to change the gender markers on their passports.
In June, Kobick expanded her order, issuing a broader injunction that barred the State Department from rejecting applications seeking gender-marker changes or gender-neutral “X” designations.
The Trump administration appealed, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Kobick’s order. The administration then filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, citing a prior high court ruling on state bans of gender-affirming care. Government lawyers argued that the passport policy doesn’t constitute sex discrimination if applied equally to everyone, and that courts lack authority to review presidential actions that may conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act.
On November 6, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, ruling from its shadow docket — which handles urgent matters outside the normal review process — sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to begin enforcing the passport restrictions on transgender people.
“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,” the court said in an unsigned order. “And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex ‘lacks any purpose other than bare…desire to harm a politically unpopular group.'”
In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — condemned the majority’s decision, noting that the Trump administration had offered no evidence it would suffer harm if barred from enforcing the passport gender-marker restrictions.
“The court…fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party,” Jackson wrote. “Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.”
The underlying lawsuit has yet to be decided on its merits and must still move through the regular court process. In the meantime, the ruling leaves transgender Americans who already updated their passports in limbo, uncertain whether they will be forced to revert to their assigned sex. The administration has previously suggested those passports would remain valid.
Individuals who submitted gender-marker change requests after the injunction were required to sign an attestation form. As Erin Reed reported in her Erin in the Morning Substack, court filings indicated that if the administration regained authority to enforce the restrictions, it planned to revoke passports issued to those who had signed the form.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the transgender plaintiffs, called the decision a “heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a bill requiring transgender Texans to use bathrooms and other facilities in public buildings that match their assigned sex at birth.
The Republican-backed law, passed largely along party lines, applies to government-owned buildings, including public schools and universities. In addition to bathrooms, it mandates sex-segregated locker rooms, changing rooms, and shower rooms, which the law defines as "multi-occupancy private spaces."
Exceptions apply to parents, guardians, and caretakers of the opposite sex, as well as law enforcement, emergency responders, and custodial staff entering for official purposes, reports The Hill.
The city of Milwaukee has installed rainbow crosswalks at the intersection of 2nd Street and National Avenue in the city’s traditionally LGBTQ neighborhood of Walker’s Point. It's a move that stands in direct contrast to U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s push to eliminate all street art from public roads.
The crosswalks, paired with rainbow-colored koi fish painted on nearby sidewalks by the popular LGBTQ venue LaCage NiteClub at 801 S. 2nd St., were designed by Jeremy Novy, a California-based street artist with deep Milwaukee ties.
RolĂłn, who has more than 150,000 followers on Instagram and over 500,000 on TikTok, says he was barraged with death threats and vile messages after Peters attacked him online for sharing videos about his life as a single gay dad.
As reported by The Advocate, Rolón's legal team filed a five-count lawsuit in Kings County Supreme Court accusing Peters of defamation and bias-related intimidation under New York's Civil Rights Law, citing multiple false statements made against him.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.