Trump administration asks Supreme Court to let passport sex designation policy take effect
Administration seeks to enforce birth-based gender designations on U.S. passports as lower-court rulings unfold in a high-stakes legal fight.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to permit enforcement of a policy requiring transgender and nonbinary passport applicants to designate sex as male or female based on their birth certificates.
That policy stems from an executive order signed when President-elect Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, directing the federal government to recognize only male or female designations based on an individual’s immutable biological classification. The order instructed the State Department to issue official documents, including passports, in line with that standard.
The administration’s filing argued that private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments.
A federal judge in Massachusetts previously ruled that the State Department must provide transgender and nonbinary applicants with passports reflecting the gender designation they select. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block that order while the case moves forward, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The legal posture places the case at the center of a broader dispute over how the United States should designate gender on government-issued identification and how those designations interact with foreign-policy communications and international travel. The Supreme Court’s involvement could shape how future administrations handle gender designations on passports and other federal IDs, at a moment when disputes over gender, identity, and government policy are politically charged in U.S. politics.
The government has sought expedited review or a stay of the lower-court order while the high court considers the matter, arguing that maintaining the birth-based standard is essential to the President’s foreign-relations and administrative authorities. Opponents contend the policy risks discriminating against transgender and nonbinary individuals and could limit their ability to travel with identification that reflects their lived identity. The court has not yet ruled on the request, and the case remains active in the judicial pipeline.
As the legal fight unfolds, observers say the outcome could influence not only passport issuance but also how the United States communicates with foreign governments and treats non-cisgender individuals in federal processes. The public record released so far indicates the dispute will hinge on questions of executive power, statutory interpretation, and the reach of immigration- and foreign-affairs-related ID policies.
The case is being watched closely in Washington and across state capitals as part of ongoing debates over how gender identity intersects with citizenship, documentation, and government authority. Updates are expected as the Supreme Court weighs whether to intervene during the ongoing litigation and whether to allow the policy to be enforced pending resolution of the broader dispute.
