A federal judge has issued a decisive ruling preventing the Trump administration from enforcing a policy that would deny transgender and non-binary people the right to obtain passports reflecting their correct gender identity.
The decision, delivered on 17 June, expands a prior injunction and now applies nationwide, effectively halting the federal government’s attempt to remove “X” gender markers and to prevent the issuance of gender-affirming passports. The policy was a result of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January, aiming to restrict passport gender designations to align strictly with an individual’s sex assigned at birth.
US District Judge Julia Kobick ruled that the policy discriminates against trans and non-binary individuals based on sex, directly violating constitutional protections. Building on her earlier decision, she also granted class action status, shielding all transgender, non-binary, and intersex passport applicants from sex-based discrimination under the proposed policy.
Judge Kobick stated that people seeking “M” or “F” markers, as well as those opting for “X”, are all affected by the administration’s directive. “By preventing them obtaining passports with a sex marker consistent with their gender identity,” she wrote, the State Department’s enforcement would have caused “irreparable harm”.
The “X” gender marker was introduced in 2022 to accommodate non-binary and intersex individuals seeking documents that reflect their identities accurately. Trump’s recent order would have reversed that progress, requiring applicants’ passports to reflect “biological sex” only.
The policy was challenged in court by six plaintiffs represented by legal advocates, who argued that the directive infringed on the rights and dignity of gender-diverse people.
One attorney described the ruling as a “critical victory” in the fight for equality and a confirmation of the right to legal recognition.
Despite the legal win, political tensions remain. The White House press office criticised the ruling, calling it an act of judicial overreach and accusing the court of undermining the president’s agenda.
Nonetheless, for many in the LGBTQ+ community, the decision represents a significant stand against state-sanctioned discrimination and a step forward in securing identity-based rights.
