The United States Supreme Court has backed the Trump administration’s policy requiring that the gender on American passports must reflect a person’s sex at birth.
The ruling means transgender and non binary individuals will no longer be able to select a gender marker that aligns with their gender identity on passports while the case continues in court.
In an order issued on Thursday, the Supreme Court granted a request to keep the policy in place, blocking a lower court decision that had earlier allowed applicants to choose an X gender marker or change their gender on passports without restrictions. According to the court, “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.”
The passport rule stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 which stated that the United States would recognise only two sexes, male and female. The previous policy under President Joe Biden had allowed gender self identification on passports and introduced an X gender marker for non binary applicants. Applicants were also not required to provide medical documentation to change their gender marker.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the ruling, warning that the decision could expose transgender people to more harm. She said the policy risks “increased violence, harassment, and discrimination” against members of the transgender community and argued that the court’s intervention was unnecessary at this stage of the legal process.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s decision does not end the case but allows the Trump era policy to remain active while legal arguments continue. Advocacy groups in the United States criticised the ruling, describing it as a setback for human rights and equality. They vowed to continue pushing for gender identity recognition in official documents.
The decision has sparked political and social debate across the country, with public discourse sharply divided along ideological lines. Rights organisations say the ruling could affect travel freedom and safety for transgender citizens, while supporters of the policy insist that official documents must reflect what they describe as “biological reality.”
