Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Passport Policy for Transgender Individuals

Fri Nov 07 2025 03:43:41 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

The Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to enforce a policy that restricts transgender and nonbinary people from selecting passport gender markers aligning with their gender identity, igniting a debate over discrimination and government authority.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has allowed the enforcement of a Trump administration policy that prohibits transgender and nonbinary individuals from designating their gender on passports according to their gender identity. The conservative-majority court claims that the policy does not discriminate, while the dissenting justices highlight concerns about increased risks of violence and harassment faced by affected individuals. This ruling continues the controversial trend of the administration's legal policies affecting LGBTQ+ rights.

WASHINGTON (Neutralecho) — In a monumental decision, the Supreme Court has ruled to allow the Trump administration to implement a policy that blocks transgender and nonbinary individuals from selecting gender markers on their passports that align with their gender identity. This ruling has significant implications as it permits the continued enforcement of a policy while ongoing litigation against it is still pending.

The decision is seen as an unexpected victory for Trump’s administration as it halts a lower-court ruling that mandated the government allow individuals to choose between male, female, or X markers that reflect their gender identity. This policy has sparked widespread debate regarding the rights of transgender individuals and the role of the government in legal gender recognition.

The conservative-majority court justified the policy by asserting that it does not constitute discrimination, stating, Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth. This explanation has been met with criticism from the court's three liberal justices, who contend that the ruling places transgender individuals at heightened risk of violence, harassment, and discrimination.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the court's decision, indicating that this policy stems from a Trump executive order characterizing transgender identity as false and corrosive. Jackson expressed concerns about the vulnerability of those forced to carry passports that do not align with their gender identity.

Many plaintiffs in the lawsuit have shared harrowing experiences, alleging that they faced sexual assault and discrimination at security checks due to mismatched identification documents. Legal advocates warn that the forced use of passports that disclose an individual’s transgender status increases their exposure to harassment and harm.

The ruling continues a pattern observed since Trump’s second term, where the court has tended to side with the government on numerous policy issues affecting LGBTQ+ communities, including military service bans. In this instance, government attorneys argued that adhering to this policy was crucial for U.S. foreign affairs, a domain in which the executive branch traditionally holds significant authority.

Under President Biden, changes were made to increase protections for transgender individuals regarding gender markers on passports, allowing nonbinary options to prevent discrimination. In response to these latest developments, LGBTQ+ advocates, including the ACLU, have expressed deep concerns about the implications of this Supreme Court ruling on gender identity rights.

The dissenting justices criticized the majority opinion for lacking clarity on how the identification policy genuinely impacts U.S. foreign relations, stressing that individual dignity and safety should be prioritized as fundamental protections in a constitutional democracy.