In a bold move that cuts through the fog of progressive gender policies, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration to enforce a passport rule grounded in biological reality.
Breitbart reported that on Thursday, the nation's highest court granted an emergency request to uphold a policy limiting passport sex markers to "male" or "female" based on birth records, effectively halting lower court decisions that favored self-identified gender designations.
This ruling comes on the heels of President Donald Trump's executive order, signed on the first day of his second term, titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government," which mandates that passports reflect an "immutable biological classification."
The executive order sharply defines "sex" as distinct from "gender identity," rejecting the notion that the two are interchangeable.
"'Sex' is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of 'gender identity,'" the order declares, setting a clear line in the sand against the previous administration's more fluid approach.
While this stance resonates with those who value traditional definitions, it’s hard not to see why some might feel caught in the crossfire of such a rigid policy shift.
The policy faced immediate pushback from transgender individuals, including named plaintiff Ashton Orr, a woman identifying as a man, who was denied a male sex marker on her passport by the State Department.
Claiming a violation of equal protection under the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, Orr and others challenged the rule, finding initial success in a federal court in Massachusetts that ruled against the administration.
Yet, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to pause that ruling during ongoing litigation, the Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court didn’t hesitate, stating the administration was "likely to succeed on the merits" of the case and highlighting the potential "irreparable injury" to the government without intervention.
"Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth," the court argued, framing the policy as a neutral reflection of historical fact.
With all due respect to differing views, this reasoning cuts to the core: a passport isn’t a canvas for personal expression—it’s a legal document, and the court seems to agree that facts should trump feelings here.
Not everyone on the bench saw it that way, as the court’s three liberal-leaning justices dissented, expressing concern over the harm to vulnerable individuals affected by the policy.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lamented, "The Court ignores these critical limits on its equitable discretion today," arguing that the government failed to show harm while plaintiffs face "imminent, concrete injury."