On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to enforce a policy prohibiting transgender and nonbinary people from choosing passport gender markers that align with their gender identity.
This decision is seen as a significant win for Trump's administration, as it permits the government to uphold the policy while a lawsuit against it is underway. Previously, a lower court had ordered the government to allow applicants to select from male, female, or X options on their passports to match their gender identity. The court's three liberal justices dissented.
The conservative-majority court ruled in a brief, unsigned order that the policy isn't discriminatory.” It asserted that displaying sex assigned at birth in passports does not violate equal protection principles, arguing that it is merely stating a historical fact without differential treatment.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, stated this policy puts transgender individuals at risk of increased violence, harassment, and discrimination. She criticized the majority's decision as enabling injury without proper justification.
Transgender plaintiffs have recounted experiences of being subjected to sexual assault, strip searches, and claims of presenting fraudulent documents at security checkpoints due to discrepancies between their gender identity and the gender marker on their passports.
The policy originates from a 2017 executive order issued by Trump, declaring that the U.S. recognizes only two sexes based on birth certificates. A 2021 legislation under President Biden later allowed the selection of an X gender marker without medical documentation.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who petitioned to the Supreme Court to uphold this policy, emphasized that passports are a matter of foreign affairs and the executive branch should maintain authority over this issue. He argued that allowing flexibility in gender identification without strict guidelines could lead to misidentification.
As discussions surrounding transgender rights and identification continue, the implications of this ruling indicate a wider struggle over the recognition of identity and the rights of transgender individuals in the United States.
