U.S. Supreme Court upholds Trump policy requiring birth sex on passports

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted approval for former President Donald Trump’s administration to implement a policy mandating that U.S. passports reflect an individual’s sex as assigned at birth. The decision has triggered widespread criticism and concern among LGBTQ+ rights organizations.

The ruling effectively halts the previous option allowing Americans to self-identify their gender or choose an “X” designation for non-binary, intersex, or gender non-conforming individuals.

Under the reinstated policy, the U.S. Department of State will issue or renew passports only with “M” or “F” markers that correspond to the sex recorded on the applicant’s birth certificate.

According to the Court, indicating a person’s birth sex on a passport is comparable to noting their country of birth.

“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 said in an unsigned order reported by CNN.

This decision reverses the policy enacted during President Joe Biden’s administration, which had allowed individuals to self-select their gender marker and, in many instances, use an “X” designation without the need for medical documentation.

The Trump administration defended the rule, arguing that it strengthens the accuracy and consistency of official records, which are essential for identity verification and international travel.

Officials maintained that aligning passport sex markers with birth certificates enhances clarity across federal agencies and reduces confusion for both domestic and foreign authorities.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent, calling the ruling part of an “unfortunate pattern” of disregarding fairness and equal protection.

“This court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. I cannot look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded,” she wrote.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Massachusetts had temporarily blocked the policy, citing potential violations of equal-protection rights. The Supreme Court’s latest action, however, allows the measure to take effect while ongoing legal challenges continue in lower courts.