Federal Court Halts Trump Policy on Gender Markers \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has partially blocked a Trump administration policy that bans “X” gender markers on passports. The ACLU argued the policy violated equal protection and procedural laws, and the court sided with transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs. The ruling allows six individuals to obtain accurate passports while the lawsuit proceeds.
Quick Looks
- Judge Julia Kobick blocked part of Trump’s policy on gender identity and passports
- Six plaintiffs can receive passports that reflect their gender identity, including “X” markers
- The judge found the rule discriminatory and “irrational” toward transgender Americans
- Kobick ruled that the policy likely violates equal protection and administrative law
- The ACLU called the injunction a historic win for LGBTQ+ rights and inclusion
- Trump’s executive order defined gender narrowly as male or female at birth
- The new policy aligns with conservative views but conflicts with medical consensus
- Plaintiffs describe fear, restricted travel, and risk of identity mismatch due to the policy
- The ACLU will push to expand the ruling nationwide
- The Trump administration insists passport rules fall under executive authority
Deep Look
A federal judge on Friday partially blocked the Trump administration’s controversial passport policy, delivering a significant victory to six transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs who say the rule violated their constitutional rights and placed unnecessary barriers on their ability to travel and live freely.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, appointed by President Joe Biden, granted a preliminary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), halting enforcement of the administration’s move to ban the “X” gender marker option and restrict gender changes on passports.
The ruling means the six plaintiffs — all of whom identify as transgender or nonbinary — must be allowed to obtain passports that accurately reflect their gender identity while the larger case continues in court.
“The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,” Judge Kobick wrote in her decision. “The government has failed to meet this standard.”
Executive Order Defines Gender Narrowly
The Trump administration’s January executive order defined gender based solely on a person’s sex assigned at birth — either male or female — effectively rejecting the concept of gender transition and excluding nonbinary and intersex identities.
This marked a stark reversal from Biden-era policies, which expanded access to gender marker flexibility and allowed Americans to choose “M,” “F,” or “X” on their passports.
Critics say Trump’s policy is rooted in ideological motives, aligning with hardline conservative viewpoints and ignoring decades of evolving medical and psychological consensus about gender identity.
Court: Policy Likely Unconstitutional and Arbitrary
Judge Kobick’s ruling found the policy likely violates both the Equal Protection Clause and federal administrative law. She said plaintiffs “plausibly pled constitutional violations” and presented evidence suggesting the policy was based on “irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.”
She also criticized the State Department for implementing the policy without following the proper procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, both of which ensure transparency and due process in federal rulemaking.
“The Passport Policy is arbitrary and capricious,” Kobick stated, “and was not adopted in compliance with legal standards.”
Plaintiffs Detail Harm, Travel Barriers, and Fear
The plaintiffs in the ACLU case described significant hardship under the policy. One woman had her passport returned with an incorrect male gender marker. Others said they were afraid to apply for changes, fearing their applications would be flagged or suspended, potentially trapping them without travel documents.
One nonbinary individual who sent in their passport on January 9, days before Trump took office, is still awaiting a response — and remains stuck in Canada, unable to attend an upcoming family wedding or a scientific conference in July.
Another plaintiff, Ash Lazarus Orr, faced interrogation from the TSA while traveling from West Virginia to New York in January, accused of presenting fake documents because their driver’s license said male while their passport said female. That incident prompted them to request a corrected passport — a request made just four days before Trump assumed office.
The ACLU says the administration’s passport rule exacerbates such conflicts, creating dangerous situations for transgender travelers and exposing them to harassment, suspicion, and unnecessary delays.
ACLU: Ruling Is a “Historic Win”
The ACLU praised Friday’s ruling as both a legal milestone and a powerful statement against discriminatory government policy.
“This decision is a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law,” said Li Nowlin-Sohl, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
“It’s a historic win in the fight against this administration’s efforts to drive transgender people out of public life.”
Nowlin-Sohl added that the ACLU plans to file a motion to expand the ruling to apply to all transgender and nonbinary Americans, not just the six named plaintiffs.
Trump Administration Response: No Violation
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argues that the policy is within the president’s legal authority and does not violate equal protection. They maintain that Americans are still free to travel abroad, even without accurate gender markers.
“Some Plaintiffs additionally allege that having inconsistent identification documents will heighten the risk that an official will discover that they are transgender,” the Justice Department wrote. “But the Department is not responsible for Plaintiffs’ choice to change their sex designation for state documents but not their passport.”
Critics say this argument fails to acknowledge the reality of modern identity documents and the rights of individuals to live as their true selves without legal barriers.
Looking Ahead: National Implications
The lawsuit is poised to become a landmark case in the legal fight for LGBTQ+ rights under the renewed Trump administration. If expanded, the injunction could block the policy nationwide and restore access to accurate identity documents for tens of thousands of Americans.
As of now, the case remains ongoing, but Friday’s ruling ensures that at least six Americans will retain the right to accurate federal identification, setting a legal precedent that may soon benefit many more.
Federal Court Halts Trump Federal Court Halts Trump
You must Register or Login to post a comment.