The US Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to enforce a controversial policy barring transgender and nonbinary individuals from choosing their preferred gender identification on passports. The decision means passports must now display an individual's sex as recorded at birth. The ruling temporarily ends a Biden-era policy that allowed passport holders to choose their gender marker based on personal identification.

 

The shift traces back to a 2021 policy under US President Joe Biden, permitting applicants to self-select their gender on passports, including a novel "X" option for nonbinary individuals. In 2022, thousands reportedly embraced this choice. However, after returning to power, President Trump issued an executive order defining sex strictly based on anatomy, a move blocked by a federal judge earlier this year. The recent Supreme Court decision now allows the State Department to implement these rules while ongoing litigation continues in the background.

 

Despite the ruling, the court remains divided. All three liberal justices dissented, citing potential harm to transgender and nonbinary people using documents that might not match their identity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticised the decision, citing the court's conservative majority for prioritising historical facts over individuals' rights. Transgender advocates argue the policy discriminates and lacks a solid legal basis, with civil rights groups pledging to continue the fight against it.

 

Future developments in this high-profile case suggest that the Supreme Court's decision is not definitive. The court will re-evaluate the legal arguments later this term. In the meantime, the State Department will maintain the current passport policy until they receive a definitive ruling, reported Yahoo News.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways

 

• US Supreme Court permits Trump's passport policy enforcement.
• Current rules require birth sex to be displayed on passports.
• The court's decision is temporary; full merits to be reviewed later.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Yahoo News 2025-11-07

 

 

3 minutes ago, webfact said:

Despite the ruling, the court remains divided. All three liberal justices dissented, citing potential harm to transgender and nonbinary people using documents that might not match their identity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticised the decision, citing the court's conservative majority for prioritising historical facts over individuals' rights. Transgender advocates argue the policy discriminates and lacks a solid legal basis, with civil rights groups pledging to continue the fight against it.

Ketanji Brown can’t even define a woman. 

Common sense for once. 

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Common sense for once. 

Exactly, waiting for the usual suspects to start yelling fascist.

An indicator of a failed ideology is their confusion of chromosomes.

2 hours ago, webfact said:

The ruling temporarily ends a Biden-era policy that allowed passport holders to choose their gender marker based on personal identification.

 

Just one of the many reasons the lunatics lost.

OK fine. Now put more effort and time to solve the pressing people problems like high grocery prices, high energy prices, pay Snap benefits and ending the GOP shutdown.

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

OK fine. Now put more effort and time to solve the pressing people problems like high grocery prices, high energy prices, pay Snap benefits and ending the GOP shutdown.

 

You may want to send a PM to Fetterman to set him straight.  He's claiming it's a Dem shutdown.

 

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You may want to send a PM to Fetterman to set him straight.  He's claiming it's a Dem shutdown.

 

MTG make similar accusation at his own party. Hard to say she is wrong as the Government and Congress are in the hands of the Republicans. Just need to POTUS to focus on the people problems rather than side track with grandeur projects and spend less time with his travel plans and golf. 

2 hours ago, novacova said:

An indicator of a failed ideology is their confusion of chromosomes.

There is no confusion. The chromosome argument was disproven long ago. I was a product of the old XX and XY educational model that defined the biological sex without accounting for the actual gender. I had to take multiple continuing education seminars to fully appreciate that biological construct does not define gender. My reliance on XX and XY was lazy and reflected my lack of education. It is you who has confused the biological basis with the behavioural preference.

 

Today I am more understanding of the role that genetic variance and the endocrine system has on the assignment of a sex gender.   The most obvious example are the the males who have XY male sex chromosomes but who are unresponsive to male hormones and who develop with female body parts with inadequate male genitalia. Your position holds that they are male, but they can neither function as male, nor present as male. What about the people born with female sex chromosomes, but who were exposed to male hormones during development and/or have an insensitivity to female hormones? they often present as the women we crudely call bull dykes. They will have  extensive body hair, have an inability to reproduce because of impaired menses and can even experience male pattern type baldness.  And then there are the people  who are born with XXY chromosomes and tend to be autistic as well as somewhat feminine despite having testes, albeit often undescended. Or the XYY people  who also tend to be autistic, but  are functioning males. 

 

Your position ignores this reality and their existence. How would you define a person who has both natural female and male genitalia?

13 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

How would you define a person who has both natural female and male genitalia?

So you were born a hermaphrodite?

25 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

There is no confusion. The chromosome argument was disproven long ago. I was a product of the old XX and XY educational model that defined the biological sex without accounting for the actual gender. I had to take multiple continuing education seminars to fully appreciate that biological construct does not define gender. My reliance on XX and XY was lazy and reflected my lack of education. It is you who has confused the biological basis with the behavioural preference.

 

Today I am more understanding of the role that genetic variance and the endocrine system has on the assignment of a sex gender.   The most obvious example are the the males who have XY male sex chromosomes but who are unresponsive to male hormones and who develop with female body parts with inadequate male genitalia. Your position holds that they are male, but they can neither function as male, nor present as male. What about the people born with female sex chromosomes, but who were exposed to male hormones during development and/or have an insensitivity to female hormones? they often present as the women we crudely call bull dykes. They will have  extensive body hair, have an inability to reproduce because of impaired menses and can even experience male pattern type baldness.  And then there are the people  who are born with XXY chromosomes and tend to be autistic as well as somewhat feminine despite having testes, albeit often undescended. Or the XYY people  who also tend to be autistic, but  are functioning males. 

 

Your position ignores this reality and their existence. How would you define a person who has both natural female and male genitalia?

 

So what's next?  I don't feel like a 68 year old geezer, so I get to change the DOB on my passport and pretend I'm something else?

 

With very rare exceptions, you were born XX or XY.  If you commit a crime and leave DNA behind, I'd like the cops to look for the right perpetrator.  Based on XX or XY, not based on their wishes.

21 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

There is no confusion. The chromosome argument was disproven long ago. I was a product of the old XX and XY educational model that defined the biological sex without accounting for the actual gender. I had to take multiple continuing education seminars to fully appreciate that biological construct does not define gender. My reliance on XX and XY was lazy and reflected my lack of education. It is you who has confused the biological basis with the behavioural preference.

 

Today I am more understanding of the role that genetic variance and the endocrine system has on the assignment of a sex gender.   The most obvious example are the the males who have XY male sex chromosomes but who are unresponsive to male hormones and who develop with female body parts with inadequate male genitalia. Your position holds that they are male, but they can neither function as male, nor present as male. What about the people born with female sex chromosomes, but who were exposed to male hormones during development and/or have an insensitivity to female hormones? they often present as the women we crudely call bull dykes. They will have  extensive body hair, have an inability to reproduce because of impaired menses and can even experience male pattern type baldness.  And then there are the people  who are born with XXY chromosomes and tend to be autistic as well as somewhat feminine despite having testes, albeit often undescended. Or the XYY people  who also tend to be autistic, but  are functioning males. 

 

Your position ignores this reality and their existence. How would you define a person who has both natural female and male genitalia?

Well said but I have a feeling that science isn't the strength of the many, ignorant posters here.

 

Also, this obsession from the right regarding trans or indeed anyone who doesn't fit nicely into their 'biblical' version of gender or sexuality has always seemed strange to me. Human biology is complicated and far from set yet their willingness to yet again ignore science for their pathalogical hatred of anyone 'different' says more about them than anyone else. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and dangerous.   

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So what's next?  I don't feel like a 68 year old geezer, so I get to change the DOB on my passport and pretend I'm something else?

 

With very rare exceptions, you were born XX or XY.  If you commit a crime and leave DNA behind, I'd like the cops to look for the right perpetrator.  Based on XX or XY, not based on their wishes.

 

The police do not search for people based upon XX or XY.  DNA is used for more specific identification purposes.

 

Yes, the variation in sex chromosomes is a rarity when we look at the total number. However,, when we look at the  numbers as individual people, it  becomes more understandable.

 

In 2024, the USA recorded  3,628,934 live births. Now let's apply the  frequency of the chromosome variations;

 

Condition	Frequency	Est No. of Births
XXY Syndrome	0.1739130%	6311
XYY syndrome	0.1000000%	3629
Triple X syndrome	0.1111111%	4032
Turner syndrome	0.0266667%	968
XXYY	0.0058824%	213
XXXY	0.0020000%	73
		15226

 

15,000 people present with  sex chromosome variations and metabolic characteristics that make them different than the XX XY model allowance. These 15,000 people have a right to be treated as the individuals that they are.  Your logic is like saying there are only 2 human colors; black and white.  People who were of a different coloring would be slotted into either white or black.  

 

The number of passports with the X symbol was estimated to be low. The Williams Institute of UCLA Law School estimated that the demand for such passports in the USA was 16,700 per annum.

 

I don't understand why the use of X is such a big objection. Sure, in my little world  from a bygone era I am ok with  people being  Male or Female, but the reality is different, and I can't impose my bias on others. I am not the person living in their skin. There are people who are genuinely born with one set of sex features, but who are wired for a different sex. To not recognize this is the same as saying that they do not exist. It's who they are. 

 

Its etched in stone,seal of approval . The SCOTUS made  the right decision.

People might disagree but its final. 6-3 . Elections have consequences.

Trumps picks in his first Admin  made the difference.

  

10 hours ago, riclag said:

Its etched in stone,seal of approval . The SCOTUS made  the right decision.

People might disagree but its final. 6-3 . Elections have consequences.

Trumps picks in his first Admin  made the difference.

 

 

It is not etched in stone and is not final. This was a ruling on the Court's emergency (shadow) docket to decide whether the administration could implement this new policy while litigation continues - it wasn't a decision on the merits.

 

And if elections really had consequences, Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Court.

 

15 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

 

It is not etched in stone and is not final. This was a ruling on the Court's emergency (shadow) docket to decide whether the administration could implement this new policy while litigation continues - it wasn't a decision on the merits.

 

And if elections really had consequences, Merrick Garland would be sitting on the Court.

 

The Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling on the shadow docket signals strong conservative support for the policy.  The ACLU which in my opinion is another radical left wing advocate organization    stance is.

“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts". 

 

Their identity is  Male or Female , Passports are official government records, not personal expression statements.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-enforce-discriminatory-passport-policy

As per usual the 6 right wing justices bend the knee to Trump.

Never has there been such a corrupt and biased Supreme Court. 

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

The Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling on the shadow docket signals strong conservative support for the policy.  The ACLU which in my opinion is another radical left wing advocate organization    stance is.

“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts". 

 

Their identity is  Male or Female , Passports are official government records, not personal expression statements.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-enforce-discriminatory-passport-policy

 

1 minute ago, Jonnapat said:

As per usual the 6 right wing justices bend the knee to Trump.

Never has there been such a corrupt and biased Supreme Court. 

Sanity  & common sense ,when your born you're either a male or female.

Well done, Trump!

 

Why is it necessary to state a person's sex/gender on a passport? What purpose does it serve now we have facial recognition, biometrics, finger prints, etc?

On 11/7/2025 at 11:16 AM, Eric Loh said:

she is wrong as the Government and Congress are in the hands of the Republicans

CNN says that it requires 60 senate votes to pass the disputed bill and there are only 50 Republican votes so how can they be in control?

"As per usual the 6 right wing justices bend the knee to Trump."

 

And if/when the Democrats get in again they will appoint justices who go along with their views!

How can you have a Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution in completely opposite ways.

I identify as a Honda Click.

1 hour ago, Jonnapat said:

As per usual the 6 right wing justices bend the knee to Trump.

Never has there been such a corrupt and biased Supreme Court. 

No, not for at least 9 or 10 months. Thanks for the good laugh.

On 11/7/2025 at 12:37 PM, Eric Loh said:

OK fine. Now put more effort and time to solve the pressing people problems like high grocery prices, high energy prices, pay Snap benefits and ending the GOP shutdown.

I thought it was the Democrats refusing was the cause of the shutdown, not the Republicans.

19 minutes ago, biggles45 said:

CNN says that it requires 60 senate votes to pass the disputed bill and there are only 50 Republican votes so how can they be in control?

A CNN viewer. My condolences.

15 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

I thought it was the Democrats refusing was the cause of the shutdown, not the Republicans.

It is the Republicans who refuse to negotiate the CR. The House  also in prolonged recess to even discuss the bill. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

It is the Republicans who refuse to negotiate the CR. The House  also in prolonged recess to even discuss the bill. 

Thanks . I don't really keep up with US domestic politics.

It’s an identity document there’s absolutely nothing ambiguous about it,if you have a weeny you are a dude even if you don’t like it.all stop.🛑 it is an international identity document no more no less,it’s not a feelings document.