The Trump administration has formally requested the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a legal dispute over passport gender markers, seeking to reinstate a policy that mandates passports reflect an individual's biological sex at birth. This action effectively rescinds the 'X' gender marker previously available to nonbinary and intersex individuals.
The administration's appeal follows a lower court's preliminary injunction that blocked the enforcement of this policy. The core of the dispute centers on an executive order issued in January 2025 by the Trump administration, which reversed the Biden administration's 2022 policy that allowed passport applicants to select 'M,' 'F,' or 'X' as their gender marker. Following the executive order, the State Department ceased processing applications requesting the 'X' marker.
This decision led to a lawsuit filed by seven transgender and nonbinary individuals who argued the policy violated their constitutional rights. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction against the policy, a decision later expanded to cover all similarly situated individuals. The Trump administration appealed this ruling, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer urging the Supreme Court in September 2025 to lift the injunction. Sauer contended that the policy aligns with the administration's foreign policy and its understanding of sex as a biological classification.
The Supreme Court's decision on this petition is currently pending. This legal battle highlights a significant societal and governmental debate surrounding gender identity and official documentation. The availability of the 'X' marker on passports, first issued in October 2021, was seen as a step towards greater inclusivity for nonbinary and gender non-conforming individuals. Prior to this, the U.S. Department of State had only issued passports with 'M' or 'F' markers since 1977.
The National Center for Transgender Equality's 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey indicated that a significant percentage of transgender respondents had identification that did not match their preferred name and gender, leading to distress and discrimination. The current legal challenge underscores the profound impact accurate identification has on an individual's ability to navigate daily life, travel, and participate fully in society. The administration's argument, as presented by Solicitor General Sauer, centers on the belief that the Constitution does not prohibit the government from defining sex based on biological classification. Conversely, legal representatives for the plaintiffs argue that the policy is discriminatory and violates constitutional protections.