In a significant ruling on November 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, granting an emergency request to enforce a new federal policy mandating that all U.S. passports display the bearer's "biological sex" as recorded at birth.
The decision allows the policy to take effect nationwide, lifting a lower court injunction that had previously blocked it.
The ruling came in the case of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Ashton Orr, et al. (No. 25A319). The administration had filed an emergency appeal to the high court after a U.S. District Court in Massachusetts issued an injunction halting the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had declined to lift that injunction, prompting the urgent appeal.
The Court's Rationale
In its order, the Supreme Court majority provided several key arguments for allowing the policy to proceed:
Equal Protection: The Court stated that recording biological sex on the travel document "does not violate equal protection" rights. The majority opinion drew an analogy to the long-standing requirement of listing a citizen's birthplace, arguing that in both cases, the government is "merely confirming a historical fact, not discriminating against or harming any specific group."
Discriminatory Intent: The ruling rejected the challengers' claims that the policy was designed to discriminate against transgender individuals. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the government acted with "improper motive or political animus."
Presidential Authority: The justices cited the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii case as a key precedent. They reaffirmed the President's broad constitutional authority in matters of foreign affairs, national security, and passport regulation.
Agency Action: The Court concluded that the Department of State was not acting "arbitrarily and capriciously." Instead, it found the agency was lawfully implementing an executive policy. The majority criticized the lower court's nationwide injunction as an "overreach" that improperly hindered the executive branch's ability to conduct foreign policy.
Political Impact and Reactions
The decision marks a major legal victory for President Trump, who has championed policies aimed at grounding federal documentation in biological sex.
Supporters of the administration praised the ruling as a common-sense restoration of "scientific truth" in public policy. They argue it provides clarity and security for international travel documentation and pushes back against what they term "radical transgender activism" seeking to remove male-female distinctions from federal law.
Conversely, the ruling was met with dismay by LGBTQ+ and civil rights organizations. These groups have argued that the policy is a direct attack on transgender and non-binary individuals, forcing them to carry documents that do not match their identity and potentially exposing them to danger or discrimination while traveling. They maintain that the policy attempts to legally erase their existence.
As the policy now moves toward implementation, the legal battle over its merits is expected to continue in the lower courts, though the Supreme Court's emergency order strongly signals its likely stance on the core issues.