Loading...
Overview: Federal Court Challenges Anti-Transgender Passport Policy
In a landmark decision on Friday, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled that a Trump administration policy denying transgender and nonbinary Americans the ability to obtain passports that reflect their gender identities is likely unconstitutional. However, the ruling stopped short of a nationwide injunction, limiting relief to six of the seven plaintiffs who brought the case.
The decision follows a legal challenge to a 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump shortly after returning to office. The order mandated the federal government—and specifically the U.S. Department of State—to recognize only two “biologically distinct” sexes: male and female.
Judge Kobick: Policy Reflects “Irrational Prejudice”
In her decision, Judge Kobick—a Biden appointee based in Boston—found that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. She emphasized that the executive order and resulting passport rules were based on “irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.”
“The Executive Order and Passport Policy are based on irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans and therefore offend our Nation’s constitutional commitment to equal protection for all Americans,” Judge Kobick wrote in her opinion.
While the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of six plaintiffs—allowing them to receive passports that reflect their actual gender identities—it did not issue a blanket nationwide injunction, noting a lack of specific justification for such a sweeping remedy at this stage.
Background: Reversal of Decades of Inclusive Policy
The lawsuit is one of several filed in response to Executive Order 14089, signed by Trump in January 2025. The order reversed multiple Biden-era protections, including the right of passport applicants to choose “X” as a gender-neutral option.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
The Trump-era policy directed the State Department to issue passports based solely on an applicant’s “biological sex at birth”, barring individuals from self-identifying as male, female, or nonbinary.
Notably, this represented a drastic shift from established practice:
- For over 30 years, the State Department had allowed updates to passport gender markers.
- In 2022, the Biden administration introduced nonbinary “X” markers on passports, aligning federal policy with global standards and supporting gender-diverse individuals.
Plaintiffs and ACLU Response
The lawsuit was filed by seven individuals, all of whom are transgender or nonbinary. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been at the forefront of defending LGBTQ+ rights against federal restrictions.
Li Nowlin-Sohl, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, expressed cautious optimism after the ruling:
“We will do everything we can to ensure this order is extended to everyone affected by the administration’s misguided and unconstitutional policy so that we all have the freedom to be ourselves.”
The ruling represents a partial victory in what is likely to be a longer legal battle, with future motions and possibly an appeal expected.
Legal and Political Implications
The case raises pressing questions about:
- The federal government’s role in recognizing gender identity
- The constitutional limits of executive power in targeting marginalized communities
- The broader rollback of LGBTQ+ rights under the second Trump administration
Legal experts have noted that the ruling may set a precedent for other courts reviewing similar executive actions, especially those stemming from EO 14089 or related regulatory changes across federal agencies.
This decision also underscores the growing judicial scrutiny of policies that appear to be motivated by political ideology rather than legitimate governmental interests.
What’s Next?
While the plaintiffs secured immediate relief, the court’s decision to limit its scope could lead to further litigation across multiple jurisdictions, especially given the widespread impact of the passport restrictions.
It remains to be seen whether the Biden-era passport options will be restored or whether the current administration’s stance will survive further constitutional challenges.
As of now:
- The State Department has not commented on the ruling.
- The White House has remained silent on whether it will appeal or revise the policy.
Observers expect this issue to eventually reach appellate courts, and potentially the Supreme Court, given the implications for gender recognition, executive authority, and civil rights enforcement.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Is the Trump passport policy still in effect?
Yes, the policy remains in effect nationwide except for six plaintiffs in the Boston case. A broader injunction has not yet been issued.
What did the Trump executive order say?
It directed federal agencies to recognize only male and female sexes, excluding nonbinary or self-identified gender designations from federal documentation, including passports.
Can transgender individuals still get an “X” on their passport?
Currently, no. The Trump administration reversed the 2022 policy that allowed applicants to choose “X” as a gender marker. The court’s decision did not restore that right for all applicants.
What are the legal arguments against the policy?
Plaintiffs argue that the policy violates equal protection under the Fifth Amendment by discriminating based on sex and gender identity. The judge agreed that the policy likely stems from animus toward transgender people.
Will this case go to the Supreme Court?
It’s possible. Given the constitutional questions and the widespread effect of the policy, appellate courts—and potentially the Supreme Court—may be asked to weigh in if the administration continues to enforce the policy or if conflicting rulings emerge in other courts.
