In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration, upholding a policy that mandates U.S. passports reflect a holder's sex at birth.
On Thursday, November 6, 2025, the nation’s highest court issued an unsigned order, effectively allowing the administration to enforce a rule that recognizes only male and female as valid sex designations, overturning lower court blocks on this controversial measure, as New York Post reports.
Let’s rewind a bit to understand how we got here. For years, between 1992 and 2021, passport applicants wanting a sex marker different from their birth certificate had to provide proof of gender-reassignment surgery or transition treatment. It was a hurdle, no doubt, but one rooted in a certain logic of documentation.
Then came the Biden administration in 2021, which tossed out those requirements, letting applicants self-select “M,” “F,” or even “X” without tying it to biology. It was hailed as progressive, though many saw it as a step away from clarity in official records.
Enter President Trump’s Day One executive order, which flipped the script by declaring the United States would recognize only two sexes—male and female. The State Department quickly aligned, reversing the Biden-era flexibility and setting the stage for a legal showdown.
Opposition was swift, with a federal district court initially blocking the new rules, followed by a panel of three Biden-appointed judges on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding that injunction. Critics of the policy, including plaintiffs in the case, argued it exposed transgender and nonbinary travelers to heightened risks of harassment and violence abroad.
The Supreme Court, however, wasn’t swayed by these concerns, issuing an unsigned order that stayed the lower court rulings. Their reasoning? “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the order stated, framing it as a neutral historical fact (Unsigned Supreme Court Order).
That line of thinking might sound cold to some, but it cuts to the heart of a conservative view: government documents should reflect reality as it was, not as one wishes it to be. The court’s majority saw no legal basis for treating this as discriminatory.
Not everyone on the bench agreed, of course. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal trio, sharply dissented, calling the decision a “senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome” (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson).
Justice Jackson didn’t stop there, arguing the government showed no harm in delaying the policy while plaintiffs faced “imminent, concrete injury” if it took effect (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson). Her point stings for those who prioritize compassion over strict adherence to binary norms.
Yet, let’s be frank: while empathy for vulnerable travelers is valid, the counterargument holds that passports aren’t personal expression—they’re legal tools. If we start bending foundational identifiers like sex, where does the line get drawn?
The liberal justices—Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—stood firm, indicating they’d have kept the lower court blocks in place. Their stance reflects a broader cultural divide on how far government should go in accommodating identity over biology.
For supporters of the Trump policy, this ruling is a victory for common sense over what they see as a progressive overreach. It’s not about denying anyone’s humanity—it’s about keeping official records grounded in unchangeable facts.
Critics, though, will likely keep pushing back, arguing this policy ignores the lived realities of transgender and nonbinary individuals. The debate is far from over, but for now, the Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand, favoring a binary framework.
As this policy rolls out, expect more discussion on balancing individual rights with the state’s role in defining identity. It’s a tough issue, no doubt, but one where clarity and consistency might just outweigh the call for boundless flexibility.
