NextFin news, On Friday morning, September 19, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to temporarily halt a federal judge's ruling in Massachusetts that mandates the U.S. State Department to provide passports reflecting the gender markers chosen by transgender and nonbinary individuals, including the 'X' gender marker.
The policy under challenge was implemented during the Biden administration, allowing passport applicants to select their own sex designation, including a third gender option 'X' for nonbinary individuals. This policy was reversed by an executive order issued by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which stated that the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, defined by immutable biological characteristics, explicitly excluding gender identity.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick of Massachusetts initially barred enforcement of the Trump-era policy against individual plaintiffs and later extended the injunction nationwide, citing likely violations of constitutional equal protection rights and federal administrative law. The plaintiffs, led by transgender individual Ashton Orr, argued that the policy causes irreparable harm by denying recognition of their gender identity on official documents.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the Supreme Court that the judge's order forces the government to communicate with foreign governments in a manner inconsistent with the President's foreign policy and scientific definitions of sex. Sauer cited the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law banning certain transgender medical treatments for minors, to support the administration's position that sex classification based on biology is lawful and non-discriminatory.
The Trump administration contends that the policy applies equally to all individuals by defining sex biologically rather than by self-identification, and denies that the policy is motivated by animus toward transgender people. Sauer also argued that pausing the judge's order would not cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, as the court's definition of affected groups does not require imminent international travel or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit previously declined to stay Judge Kobick's injunction, noting that the government had not sufficiently engaged with the constitutional and equal protection issues raised by the lower court.
The Supreme Court's decision on whether to grant the Trump administration's request to block the injunction is pending. The case highlights ongoing legal and political disputes over transgender rights and federal recognition of gender identity in official documents.
Sources: SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/trump-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-prevent-transgender-people-from-choosing-sex-markers-on-passports/), Mezha.net (https://mezha.net/eng/bukvy/us-supreme-court-reviews-trump-era-gender-marker-passport-policy/), NBC News, CBS News.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
