最高法院周四允许特朗普政府推进新规定，要求所有美国护照显示公民出生时的生物性别，而不是他们表明的性别身份。
最高法院保守派多数以6比3的投票结果推翻了下级法院的两项裁决，以及跨性别美国人的主张，即这一政策变化是非法的、歧视性的，并使他们面临现实世界的伤害，特别是在旅行时。
自1992年以来，护照申请人通过提供医生证明，证明他们已经接受了性别转换的临床治疗，就可以获得带有性别标记的文件，表明他们所选择的性别身份----与出生时指定的性别不同。
最高法院在一份未署名的临时意见中写道，“显示护照持有人出生时的性别，不会比显示他们的出生国更违反平等保护原则——在这两种情况下，政府只是在证明一个历史事实，而不会对任何人进行区别对待。”。
新政策的挑战者“未能证明政府展示生物性别的选择除了赤裸裸的目的之外没有任何其他目的”...想要伤害一个在政治上不受欢迎的团体。
关于案情的诉讼继续通过下级法院进行，但高等法院的多数法官得出结论，特朗普政府“有可能成功”。
大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克森(Ketanji Brown Jackson)在一份措辞严厉的异议书中，指责她的同事未能公平对待跨性别者，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官和埃琳娜·卡根大法官加入了异议。
杰克逊写道:“通过阻止跨性别美国人获得性别一致的护照，政府不仅仅是发表了一份声明，表明其认为跨性别身份是‘虚假的’”。在通过TSA机场安检时,“护照政策也招致了调查，有时是羞辱，这些原告经历了额外的审查”。
该异议人士表示，“记录在案的对这些原告的真实伤害，显然超过了政府对立即实施护照政策的未加解释(也无法解释)的兴趣。”
乔恩·戴维森，美国公民自由联盟性少数群体的高级律师&艾滋病项目称法院的行动是“所有人做自己的自由遭遇的令人心碎的挫折，也是特朗普政府反对跨性别者及其宪法权利的火上浇油。”
“强迫跨性别者携带违背其意愿的护照增加了他们面临骚扰和暴力的风险，并增加了他们在确保自由、安全和被接受方面已经面临的巨大障碍。戴维森在一份声明中说:“我们将继续反对这一政策，并为一个没有人被剥夺对自己身份的自决权的未来而努力。”。
Supreme Court allows Trump to end passport gender marker policy
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with new rules requiring all U.S. passports display a citizen's biological sex at birth rather than their indicated gender identity.
The 6-3 decision by the court's conservative majority overrides two lower court decisions and the claims of transgender Americans that the policy change is illegal, discriminatory and exposes them to real-world harms, particularly while traveling.
Since 1992, passport applicants have been able to obtain documents with sex markers indicative of their chosen gender identity -- when different from sex assigned at birth -- by providing doctor certification that they had undergone clinical treatment for gender transition.
"Displaying passport holders' sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth -- in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment," the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned, interim opinion.
The challengers of the new policy "have failed to establish that the Government's choice to display biological sex 'lacks any purpose other than a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group," the opinion said.
Litigation on the merits continues to work through lower courts, but the high court's majority concluded the Trump administration is "likely to succeed."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a sharply-worded dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, accused her colleagues of failing to treat transgender people fairly.
"By preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is 'false,'" wrote Jackson. "The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced" when going through TSA airport security.
"The documented real-world harms to these plaintiffs obviously outweigh the Government's unexplained (and inexplicable) interest in immediate implementation of the Passport Policy," the dissent said.
Jon Davidson, the senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ&HIV Project, called the court's action a "heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights."
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity," Davidson said in a statement.
