A federal judge has issued a partial block on a policy introduced by the Trump administration that restricts transgender and nonbinary Americans from updating the gender markers on their passports, including the use of the ‘X’ designation for nonbinary individuals. The ruling provides temporary relief to six individuals involved in a lawsuit, allowing them to obtain passports that reflect their gender identities.
The decision came in response to a motion for a preliminary injunction, which halts the enforcement of the new policy while the lawsuit progresses. The judge ruled that the policy and an accompanying executive order discriminated against applicants based on sex, and as such, required a higher level of judicial scrutiny. The court found that the government failed to prove the policy was substantially related to an important governmental interest, a key standard under intermediate scrutiny.
The judge also stated that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success in proving that the policy and executive order were rooted in irrational prejudice against transgender individuals. Furthermore, it was determined that the policy change was arbitrary and not adopted in accordance with the procedures laid out in the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The executive order, signed in January, narrowed the legal definition of sex to only male or female and dismissed the concept of gender transition. This definition aligned with conservative perspectives but conflicted with the stance of major medical associations and policies previously implemented.
Under the new rules, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals faced barriers to obtaining passports that accurately reflect their gender identity. Advocates argue this not only impacts their dignity but also has real-world consequences on their ability to travel freely and safely.
For instance, one plaintiff reported having her passport returned with an incorrect male designation. Others expressed fear about submitting their applications, worried that the State Department might suspend the process or retain their documents. One person who applied for a name and gender change in January has yet to receive a passport and remains unable to leave Canada, potentially missing significant personal and professional events.
Another plaintiff, Ash Lazarus Orr, recounted an incident where he was accused of using false identification by airport authorities due to inconsistencies between his driver’s license and passport. This experience prompted him to request a corrected passport just days before the Trump administration assumed office.
In defending the policy, the administration argued that it did not infringe upon constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Officials claimed that the president holds broad authority over passport policy and maintained that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm, as they remained able to travel internationally. They also suggested that any issues resulting from mismatched identification documents were the responsibility of the individuals involved.
Despite these claims, the judge’s ruling emphasized the discriminatory nature of the policy and its failure to follow lawful administrative procedures. Advocates for transgender rights hailed the decision as a major victory in the ongoing fight for equality and inclusion. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs announced plans to seek a broader application of the ruling, aiming to extend passport access to all transgender and nonbinary Americans.
