In a legal dispute that has captured national attention, a group of transgender and nonbinary Americans is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a federal district mandate permitting them to choose their sex markers on passports. This ongoing litigation, spearheaded by attorney Chase Strangio, stems from a policy shift first introduced during the Trump administration, which stipulated that sex markers on passports must align with the sex assigned at birth. Strangio argues that this policy places transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals at risk each time they present their passports.
The controversy revolves around a January 2025 executive order by former President Donald Trump titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order reversed policies established under the Biden administration that had previously allowed for gender identity markers and a third gender option, “X,” on passports without requiring medical documentation (see the executive order).
The current legal proceedings were initiated by seven plaintiffs who claim that Trump’s passport policy violates their constitutional rights to equal protection, international travel, and informational privacy. Initially, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued an order halting the enforcement of the policy for six of the seven plaintiffs, which was later expanded to apply broadly to transgender and nonbinary applicants (view the case details).
Despite an appeal from the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld Kobick’s orders, prompting U.S. Solicitor D. John Sauer to seek intervention from the Supreme Court. Sauer argues that the policy is lawful and contends it is essential for the U.S. to maintain consistent foreign policy communications based on what he describes as “scientific reality.”
In response, Strangio refutes the justification of foreign relations, suggesting the government’s logic undermines the passport’s role as an identity verification document. He further points out that the policy contradicts federal administrative law, which requires agency actions to be reasonable and well-explained. Additionally, Strangio suggests that the policy change was motivated by bias against transgender people, referencing a stated aim of the policy to “out” transgender individuals.
As the legal battle unfolds before the nation’s highest court, the case continues to provoke discussions on identity rights and federal administrative policy, with broader implications for the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals seeking recognition. For further details on this ongoing case, visit SCOTUSblog.