Supreme Court Permits Trump to Restrict Trans, Nonbinary Passport Sex Markers
The Supreme Court has authorized the Trump administration to enforce a policy that mandates US passports reflect a traveler’s biological sex. This decision has significant implications for transgender and nonbinary Americans, who view the policy as a violation of their constitutional rights.
Overview of the Supreme Court Decision
On Thursday, the court ruled in favor of requiring sex designations in passports to match the sex assigned at birth. This ruling represents another victory for President Trump on emergency matters brought before the court, further impacting LGBTQ rights amid ongoing discussions of various legal cases affecting transgender individuals.
Key Points from the Ruling
- The court concluded that showing a passport holder’s sex at birth does not violate equal protection principles.
- In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that this decision continues a troubling trend of neglecting equitable outcomes.
- Jackson emphasized that basic rights are being selectively ignored by the court.
Reactions to the Decision
Following the court’s ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the decision, labeling it a “heartbreaking setback.” ACLU senior counsel Jon Davidson pointed out that requiring transgender individuals to carry passports that disclose their sex at birth heightens the risk of harassment and violence.
Background on Passport Sex Markers
Sex markers have been part of US passports since 1976. Changes allowed in 1992 enabled individuals to choose a different gender marker if they provided specific medical documentation. The Biden administration introduced an additional option in 2021, permitting “X” sex markers, which cater to intersex and nonbinary individuals. However, the Trump administration swiftly nullified these options and reinstated policies requiring documents to represent biological sex.
Legal Battles and Administration’s Arguments
In response to the Trump administration’s policy changes, several lawsuits were filed. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the requirement constitutes treatment based on sex, warranting further judicial scrutiny. Despite requests to block this ruling, a federal appeals court sided with the lower court, noting that the administration failed to adequately address constitutional concerns.
The Trump administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the policy was lawful and applied equally to all individuals based on biological sex. They contended that courts have limited authority to review presidential policy changes concerning federal regulations.
The Broader Context
This ruling is the latest in a series of legal actions surrounding LGBTQ rights during the Trump administration. Previously, the Supreme Court allowed enforcement of a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, marking a pattern of decisions impacting transgender rights.
The Supreme Court’s prolonged consideration of the passport case highlights the complexity of these issues. While the emergency decision does not resolve the larger legal battles, it underscores the ongoing struggle for equality and recognition faced by transgender and nonbinary Americans.
