A recent legal ruling by a federal judge has struck a blow to the Trump administration’s attempt to restrict the identification options available to transgender and nonbinary individuals on passports. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, ensures that these individuals can choose a gender marker that reflects their identity, including options such as male, female, or “X,” rather than being confined to the gender they were assigned at birth.
This legal intervention follows an executive order signed in January, endorsing a restrictive definition of sex that excluded the validity of transitioning from the assigned sex at birth to another gender. Previously, Kobick issued a narrower ruling providing relief to only a small group involved in a lawsuit alongside the American Civil Liberties Union. However, her recent decision extends protection to a wider group of transgender and nonbinary people in need of a passport.
The White House, through Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly, criticized the judge’s ruling, framing it as a rejection of President Trump’s mandate and an endorsement of what she labeled as radical gender ideology that defies biological conventions. Nevertheless, Judge Kobick pointed out that the administration failed to demonstrate any constitutional injury or international diplomatic damage that blocking its policy might cause.
Kobick’s ruling highlighted the violation of constitutional rights for those affected by the passport policy, offering them protection under the legal framework of equal protection. She emphasized that any constitutional harm claimed by the Executive Branch was a consequence of implementing a policy likely infringing upon the rights of many Americans.
Although intersex individuals were not explicitly included under the injunction, they are not excluded if they meet certain criteria. Kobick noted the unique situation of intersex people, whose biology does not conform neatly into binary gender categories, and the challenges they face under the current passport policy.
Her decision, aligning with a motion from the ACLU, comes as a part of broader judicial scrutiny, demanding that government actions be substantially related to significant governmental interests, a standard she declared unmet in this instance. The ACLU’s lawsuit emphasized personal stories illustrating how current passport policies have left individuals in precarious positions, such as returning passports with incorrect gender designations or causing undue delays.
In defense, the Trump administration has claimed that the policy adheres to constitutional equal protection provisions and operates within the president’s broader discretionary powers over passport regulations. They argued that plaintiffs retain the freedom to travel internationally, minimizing claims of harm.