In a bold 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration a significant win by temporarily greenlighting a State Department policy that mandates listing biological sex on passports.
This ruling, which overturns a lower court block in Massachusetts, allows the policy to stand while a class action lawsuit from transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals moves through the legal system.
The controversy began when the Trump administration, upon taking office, issued executive orders aimed at enforcing stricter rules on gender identification, including in passports, sports, and the military.
One such order reversed the Biden administration’s earlier decision to allow an “X” gender marker on passports, insisting instead on a binary designation based on biology at birth.
This move sparked immediate backlash, with plaintiffs in the class action suit arguing that passports should reflect the gender individuals live as, not the one assigned at birth.
A Massachusetts lower court initially sided with the plaintiffs, halting the policy, but the Supreme Court stepped in, declaring that the lower court’s ruling was flawed.
The high court’s 6-3 split saw the three liberal justices dissenting, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, penning a sharp critique of the majority’s stance.
“The majority 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.
While her words tug at the heartstrings, one might argue the court’s role isn’t to play emotional referee but to uphold legal clarity—here, affirming the government’s right to define its documentation standards.
The unsigned majority order countered with a no-nonsense take, stating, “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth.”
That’s a sharp jab at the notion of subjective identity trumping objective record-keeping—passports aren’t personal diaries; they’re state-issued IDs meant to communicate verifiable data to foreign entities.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision as part of a broader winning streak, noting the Department of Justice has notched roughly two dozen victories on the Supreme Court’s fast-tracked emergency docket this year.
Outside the Supreme Court, a rally in support of transgender care unfolded on June 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C., underscoring the deep public divide over these policies.
While empathy for personal struggles is warranted, the core issue remains whether individual expression can override governmental standards in official documents—a debate far from settled as the class action suit trudges on in lower courts.
Ultimately, this Supreme Court ruling reinforces the Trump administration’s push to anchor policies in biological reality over progressive ideals, a stance that’s sure to keep fueling both legal battles and cultural clashes for the foreseeable future.
