What's happened
The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halts a policy requiring passports to display sex assigned at birth, even if it differs from gender identity. The decision allows enforcement while legal challenges proceed, with lower courts considering the policy's legality. The ruling impacts transgender and nonbinary travelers' identification documents.
What's behind the headline?
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the ongoing ideological divide over transgender rights and federal authority. The conservative majority's stance that displaying sex at birth is a 'historical fact' aligns with broader efforts to restrict recognition of gender identity. This ruling effectively reinstates a policy that many argue endangers transgender travelers, exposing them to increased harassment and violence. The dissenting justices highlight the real-world safety risks, emphasizing that passports are vital for personal security and international travel. The decision signals that the court will prioritize executive authority over individual rights in this context, likely leading to further legal battles and policy shifts. The impact on transgender and nonbinary communities will be significant, as their ability to travel safely and authentically is compromised. This ruling also reflects the broader political battle over gender recognition, with implications for civil rights and equality in the U.S. and abroad.
What the papers say
The New York Times reports that the court's order allows enforcement of the policy while legal challenges continue, emphasizing that passports with sex assigned at birth will be required for new or renewed documents. France 24 highlights the conservative majority's view that displaying sex at birth is a neutral, factual attestation, contrasting with the dissenting opinion that warns of increased violence and discrimination against transgender individuals. The NY Post notes that liberal justices criticized the decision as a setback for transgender rights, with Justice Jackson condemning the policy's potential to cause harm. All sources agree that this is a significant legal and social development, with ongoing litigation likely to shape future policies.
How we got here
The policy stems from the Trump administration's 2025 executive order recognizing only two sexes, based on biological classification. It reversed Biden-era policies allowing gender-neutral markers and reflecting gender identity on passports. Legal challenges emerged from transgender and nonbinary individuals citing safety concerns and inaccuracies, leading to court disputes. The Supreme Court's intervention reflects ongoing debates over identity rights and federal authority over foreign affairs.
Go deeper
More on these topics
-
Hunter Schafer is an American fashion model, actress, and LGBTQ rights activist. In 2019, she made her acting debut portraying Jules in the HBO series Euphoria.
-
Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.
-
Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate a
-
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdict