The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a consequential decision on November 6, 2025, allowing the Trump administration to enforce a controversial new policy requiring all U.S. passports to display only a citizen’s biological sex as assigned at birth. This 6-3 ruling, delivered by the court’s conservative majority, immediately overturned lower court decisions that had blocked the administration’s efforts and ignited an intense national debate about the rights and recognition of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans.
For over three decades, U.S. passport policy had slowly evolved to accommodate the needs of transgender people. According to NBC News, since 1992, applicants could obtain passports with sex markers matching their gender identity—rather than their sex at birth—if they provided medical certification of gender transition. The Biden administration took this a step further in 2021, introducing the “X” marker for nonbinary individuals and removing the medical documentation requirement, allowing applicants to self-select their gender marker as “male,” “female,” or “X.”
But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing these policies. The new directive required that all passports reflect only the sex listed on an applicant’s birth certificate, eliminating the “X” option and any ability to select a marker that aligns with gender identity rather than biological sex. As NPR reported, this shift was part of a broader set of executive orders aimed at rolling back government recognition of transgender status—including policies affecting the military, prisons, and federal inmate health care.
The administration’s move was met with immediate legal challenges. The case, known as Trump v. Orr, was led by Ashton Orr, a transgender man from West Virginia. Orr had applied for a passport with a male sex marker in January 2025, but was told by the State Department in February that only a female marker could be issued. Orr and six other plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the new policy violated their constitutional rights to equal protection, privacy, and travel, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. They claimed that being forced to carry passports that do not reflect their gender identity exposes them to harassment, violence, and misidentification, especially when traveling internationally.
In June 2025, a federal judge in Massachusetts sided with the plaintiffs, ordering the State Department to allow applicants to self-identify their gender marker while the case proceeded. This decision was upheld by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September. However, the Trump administration quickly filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, arguing that the injunction harmed U.S. interests by compelling the government to “speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President’s foreign policy and scientific reality.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserted, “The Constitution does not prohibit the government from defining sex in terms of an individual’s biological classification.”
On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s emergency request without oral arguments, as is typical for such orders. The unsigned opinion from the majority stated, “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 further noted that the plaintiffs “have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex 'lacks any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group.'” While the case continues in lower courts, the Supreme Court’s decision allows the Trump policy to take immediate effect and signals that the administration is likely to prevail in the end.
The ruling drew a blistering dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Jackson accused the majority of failing to appreciate the “real-world harms” faced by transgender Americans. In her dissent, she wrote, “The Government seeks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evidence that it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily enjoined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect.” She went on to describe the majority’s order as a “pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion” and lamented the court’s increasing willingness to grant emergency relief to the Trump administration.
Advocates for transgender rights responded with dismay. Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the court’s action “a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights.” Davidson further argued, “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, defending the administration’s stance, posted on X that the decision “reflects the administration’s view that there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.” Supporters of the policy argue that it upholds the integrity of official documents and aligns with a biological understanding of sex, emphasizing that the government has a legitimate interest in maintaining consistent, fact-based identification standards.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case marks the 22nd time since the start of Trump’s second term that it has granted an emergency request from the administration, according to an NBC News tally. In nearly all of these cases, the administration has prevailed—prompting concern among some legal scholars and federal judges about the court’s growing reliance on the so-called “shadow docket” to resolve high-stakes disputes without full briefing or public deliberation.
For transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, the immediate impact of the ruling is profound. As the ACLU’s lawyers wrote in court papers, “This new policy puts transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people in potential danger whenever they use a passport.” The plaintiffs and their advocates maintain that the policy reverses a 30-year trend toward greater inclusivity and recognition, and they vow to continue their legal battle as the case returns to the lower courts.
As the debate rages on, the Supreme Court’s decision has laid bare the deep divisions in American society over the recognition of gender identity and the role of government in defining it. Whether the courts will ultimately uphold or strike down the Trump administration’s policy remains to be seen, but for now, the lives and rights of many Americans hang in the balance.
