Supreme Court Upholds Biological-Sex Passport Policy in Major Win for Trump Administration

Key Facts

Published: November 7, 2025 Location: Washington D.C. Source: Fox News, Wire Services

• Supreme Court allows Trump administration’s biological-sex passport policy to take effect
• 6–3 order reverses lower-court block in Massachusetts
• Majority says listing sex at birth “merely attests to a historical fact”
• Policy reverses Biden-era “X” gender marker
• Legal challenge continues as broader debate over gender and law intensifies

by Emmitt Barry, with reporting from Washington D.C. Bureau Staff

(Worthy News) – In a decision that could reshape federal identification standards, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to enforce its policy requiring Americans to list their biological sex–male or female–on passports, rather than self-identified gender.

The 6-3 order, issued late Thursday, reinstated the policy after a lower court in Massachusetts blocked it earlier this year. The unsigned majority opinion stated that listing a passport holder’s sex at birth “no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” emphasizing that the government is “merely attesting to a historical fact” rather than engaging in discrimination.

The ruling marks a major victory for President Donald Trump and his administration’s broader initiative to align federal documents and programs with biological and legal realities rather than personal identity assertions. The order permits the policy to take effect while legal challenges continue in the lower courts.

Conservative Majority Emphasizes Constitutional Authority

While the opinion was unsigned, its reasoning echoed earlier statements made by conservative justices in similar administrative cases. Chief Justice John Roberts has previously written that “the role of the courts is not to substitute their policy judgments for those of the elected branches,” underscoring the Court’s limited role in second-guessing executive decisions made under lawful authority.

Justice Neil Gorsuch has also emphasized that executive agencies must have clear statutory authority for their actions, writing in a 2020 decision that “the Constitution does not permit judges to rewrite laws under the guise of interpretation.” Legal analysts say that sentiment aligns with Thursday’s order, which deferred to the executive branch’s authority over passport issuance and foreign policy.

The case arose after a group of self-identified transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals filed a class-action lawsuit, arguing that the State Department’s requirement violated equal protection rights. Plaintiffs claimed that passports should “reflect the sex [people] live as and express, rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.”

Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, countered that passports are legal instruments communicating information to foreign governments, not self-expression documents. “Private citizens cannot force the President to communicate in a way that defies his foreign policy preferences and scientific reality,” Sauer wrote.

Reversal of Biden-Era Policy

The State Department’s policy stems from a January 2025 executive order by President Trump directing all federal agencies to “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on biological classification and birth records. The move reversed the Biden administration’s 2021 rule allowing an optional “X” gender marker on passports for those identifying outside the male-female binary.

Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the Supreme Court’s decision, noting that the Department of Justice has now secured more than two dozen victories on the Court’s emergency docket this year.

“Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport,” Bondi said. “In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.”

The Biden-era rule had been praised by progressive groups as an advancement of “gender inclusivity.” However, Trump officials argued it undermined the legal clarity of U.S. documents and created potential diplomatic confusion with nations that do not recognize gender designations outside the male-female binary.

Liberal Dissent and Broader Implications

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented sharply. She criticized what she described as a “routine” deference to Trump administration policies and accused the Court of failing to consider “the harm inflicted on the most vulnerable.”

The ruling does not end the lawsuit, which will continue in the lower courts, but it allows the biological-sex policy to remain in force while the case proceeds.

Legal observers say the decision underscores the Court’s growing willingness to allow executive branch policy shifts to proceed while litigation is ongoing, particularly when the changes involve issues of science, security, or foreign affairs.

A Broader Cultural Signal

The case reflects a larger national debate over whether government policy should conform to individual identity or to biological definition. Supporters of the decision argue it restores consistency and factual integrity to government documents, while critics call it a step backward for transgender rights.

With the Court’s conservative majority firmly in place, Thursday’s ruling is seen as another sign that questions of sex, biology, and law will continue to shape the judicial and cultural landscape in the months ahead.

Latest Worthy News