Supreme Court Allows Trump to Enforce Passport Gender Policy, Dropping ‘X’ Marker
The U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to enforce a controversial passport policy. This policy eliminates the option of an ‘X’ gender marker on passports. It mandates that all passports reflect the holder’s biological sex at birth.
The Court’s Decision
The high court issued its ruling on Thursday, agreeing to an emergency appeal by the Trump administration. The decision to freeze a lower court order occurred amid ongoing litigation over the policy, which was initially introduced earlier this year.
In a split decision of 6-3, the Supreme Court found that the Trump administration was likely to prevail in its case. The court argued that listing a passport holder’s sex at birth is a factual representation, akin to stating the country of birth.
Dissenting Opinions
The three dissenting justices, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern over the implications for transgender and nonbinary individuals. Jackson contended that the rule imposes an unfair dilemma. They are forced to either use passports that don’t align with their gender identity or avoid essential activities that require identification.
- Travel
- Opening bank accounts
- Renting vehicles
- Starting new jobs
Jackson emphasized that the harm these individuals face is significant and immediate. Her dissent was supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Background on the Policy
This passport directive reverses a previous Biden administration policy. Under that policy, applicants could self-select their gender marker, including the newly introduced ‘X’ for those identifying as nonbinary. The Trump administration defines sex strictly in biological terms.
In response to the directive, which created significant public outcry, seven transgender and nonbinary individuals filed a lawsuit against the administration. They argued that the new policy violated federal law and was unconstitutional.
Legal Proceedings
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. She criticized the administration for failing to provide a rational justification for the change. Under Kobick’s directive, the State Department was temporarily required to reinstate previous policies that allowed self-identification.
However, the Trump administration contested Kobick’s ruling, arguing it interfered with presidential authority over foreign affairs. The administration sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to enable immediate enforcement of its policy.
Implications for Travellers
The implications of this ruling are profound for many individuals. Without the option to choose a gender marker that reflects their identity, many face increased risks and challenges in daily life. This ongoing legal battle highlights significant tensions between government policies and individual rights.
