On November 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that has sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ+ community and ignited fierce debate nationwide. In a decision released Thursday, the Court’s conservative majority sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to block transgender and nonbinary people from selecting the passport gender marker that matches their gender identity—a reversal of decades-old State Department practice. The move halts a lower court’s order that had temporarily forced the federal government to permit individuals to choose among male, female, or X on their passports while broader legal challenges continue.
The unsigned emergency order, often referred to as a “shadow docket” decision, asserted that the policy requiring passports to reflect sex assigned at birth is not discriminatory. According to the Associated Press, the majority wrote, “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 ruling came as a response to the Trump administration’s petition to stay a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the policy in June 2025.
This policy shift stems from an executive order signed by President Trump at the start of his current term, which recognized only “two sexes, male and female,” based strictly on “biological classification” at birth. According to Common Dreams, the Trump State Department quickly moved to enforce the new rule, barring transgender and nonbinary Americans from updating the gender marker on their passports to reflect their lived identities. Previously, the State Department had allowed such changes with appropriate medical documentation, a process described as workable and humane by advocates.
The decision to uphold Trump’s policy was not unanimous. The Court’s three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—issued a forceful dissent. Justice Jackson, writing for the minority, warned that the policy “will lead to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination” against trans and nonbinary people. She condemned the majority’s reasoning, stating, “This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.” In her dissent, Jackson further criticized the Court’s willingness to intervene in favor of the government without considering the “imminent, concrete injury” that would befall the plaintiffs if the policy went into effect.
The policy’s real-world effects have already been felt. As reported by Common Dreams, transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs represented by the ACLU testified that they were afraid to submit passport applications, fearing the risk of being outed, harassed, or even endangered while traveling. The experience of actress Hunter Schafer, a transgender woman who was issued a passport listing her as male despite her legal documents and appearance, highlighted the confusion and distress the policy has caused.
Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, responded to the Supreme Court’s decision with a stark warning: “This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents.” Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, added, “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.” The ACLU has pledged to continue challenging the policy in court, calling it an “unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans.”
The Human Rights Campaign echoed these concerns, with Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy, stating, “The Trump administration’s policy serves one purpose: discrimination. It exists to out our transgender friends and loved ones, to make their lives more difficult, to demean and embarrass them at the border, in the airport, and throughout their daily lives. The State Department had a process in place for decades that allowed trans and, more recently, non-binary people to have documents to present that identified them appropriately. These policies worked. There is no reason to change it other than malice.”
Legal experts warn that the Supreme Court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences beyond passports. According to EITM, the decision may embolden states to pursue stricter identification policies and limit equal-protection scrutiny for transgender people nationwide. The ruling, which dismissed claims of unconstitutional animus and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act with little analysis, signals that the Court may be willing to uphold other policies targeting transgender Americans. Experts suggest that Real ID requirements could be leveraged to restrict gender marker changes even in states that have previously supported transgender rights, potentially unleashing a wave of legislation with the Court’s implicit approval.
For many, the process leading up to this moment has been fraught with uncertainty and anxiety. During the period when lower courts had blocked the policy, the Trump administration permitted transgender people to update their passports if they signed an attestation document. Now, with the Supreme Court’s decision, those who updated their documents during the injunction face the risk of having their passports revoked—a possibility the administration previously hinted at in court filings. As reported by EITM, the State Department has been collecting data from these attestations, and the fate of those passports remains unclear.
Advocates argue that the harms are not hypothetical. Judges in earlier cases found that forcing transgender people to travel with documents that out them exposes them to violence and imprisonment in countries hostile to their existence. At home, it can mean harassment, denial of services, and a profound mental toll. As one judge noted, these risks are “immediate and potentially severe.”
Supporters of the policy, including the Trump administration and its allies, argue that the policy is simply about “attesting to a historical fact,” as the Supreme Court’s majority opinion put it. They maintain that the requirement does not treat anyone differently and is consistent with the government’s interest in reliable identification. Yet, critics counter that such a stance ignores the lived realities of transgender and nonbinary people and disregards the purpose of identification documents—to ensure safety and recognition, not to police identity.
The Supreme Court’s decision also comes amid a broader wave of legislative and judicial actions affecting transgender rights. Just days earlier, the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning some medical care for transgender youths, and gatherings in places like New York’s Union Square have reflected the growing anxiety and activism within the LGBTQ+ community.
For now, the future of passport gender markers—and, more broadly, the recognition of transgender identities in official documents—remains uncertain. The ACLU has vowed to press on with its legal challenge, while advocates and affected individuals brace for the potential fallout. As the legal battle continues, the decision stands as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle over identity, dignity, and equal protection under the law in the United States.
