Judge Blocks Trump’s Restrictive Passport Rule for Trans & Nonbinary Americans
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on June 17, pausing a Trump-era policy that limited passports to gender markers based solely on biological sex at birth. This decision extends earlier protection—originally granted to just six individuals—to all transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans challenging the rule. She also certified the case as a class action lawsuit.
Judge Kobick found that the policy “likely discriminated on the basis of sex” and reflected “irrational prejudice” toward transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The administration’s rule, which reversed longstanding State Department practices—including allowing an official “X” marker introduced by the Biden administration—was hard to justify under constitutional scrutiny.
The ruling now covers anyone seeking a:
- New passport
- Renewal
- Name or gender change
- Replacement after loss or damage
This shift means applicants can once again request passports aligning with their identity—whether “M,” “F,” or “X”—while the legal challenge plays out.
The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, called the decision a "critical victory", ensuring equal treatment for LGBTQ+ passport holders. In contrast, the Trump-appointed White House denounced it as a “rogue judge” overruling the administration’s agenda and promoting "radical gender ideology".
This ruling comes amid a series of Trump-issued directives mandating a strict binary definition of sex across federal documents. These backed an overhaul by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which eliminated self-identification and the “X” gender marker. The court now blocks those changes comprehensively, while associated lawsuits continue.
Judge Kobick’s ruling marks a major rebuke of Trump administration policy, reaffirms constitutional protections for transgender and nonbinary Americans, and restores access to accurate government identification. With class-wide coverage and a clear constitutional underpinning, this case sets a powerful precedent—while the broader legal fight over gender identity documentation continues unfolding.
