%20(1).jpg)
Federal Judge Blocks Trump-Era Passport Policy Denying Gender Changes for Transgender Americans
Washington, D.C. – June 18, 2025
In a landmark victory for transgender rights, a U.S. district judge has struck down a controversial Trump administration policy that required transgender individuals to provide medical proof of gender transition before updating the gender marker on their passports. The ruling, issued Tuesday by Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, immediately restores the Obama-era self-identification standard and delivers a stinging rebuke to what advocates called "discriminatory bureaucracy."
The Ruling: A Win for Self-Identification
Judge Pitlyk’s 42-page decision found the 2021 policy—enacted by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—violated both the Administrative Procedure Act and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The ruling mandates that the State Department must once again allow passport applicants to select "M" or "F" based solely on their self-identified gender, without requiring medical documentation.
"This policy served no legitimate governmental interest and imposed a disproportionate burden on transgender individuals seeking basic dignity and recognition," wrote Pitlyk, an appointee of President Biden.
Backstory: A Rollercoaster of Policy Shifts
The legal battle traces back to 2010, when the Obama administration first allowed gender marker changes via self-certification. The Trump administration abruptly reversed this in 2021, requiring proof of "clinical treatment" for gender transition—a standard that often forced transgender people to undergo expensive surgeries or face bureaucratic deadlock.
Lambda Legal, which led the lawsuit on behalf of transgender advocacy groups, hailed Tuesday’s decision as "the final nail in the coffin of this cruel and unnecessary policy."
Impact: Immediate Relief for Thousands
The ruling affects an estimated 1.2 million transgender Americans, many of whom faced harassment, employment discrimination, or even danger when their IDs didn’t match their gender expression.
"For years, I had to choose between lying on official forms or outing myself as trans in unsafe situations," said Aiden Gonzalez, a plaintiff in the case. "Today, the court affirmed that my identity isn’t up for debate."
Political Reactions Split Along Party Lines
Democrats: Celebrated the decision, with Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) calling it "a restoration of basic human rights."
Republicans: Some conservatives vowed to fight back. "This erases biological reality," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who pledged to introduce legislation countering the ruling.
Legal experts, however, say congressional action is unlikely to succeed given the court’s strong constitutional grounding.
What’s Next?
The State Department has 30 days to update its passport application forms and training materials. Advocates are now pushing for additional reforms, including:
Nonbinary "X" Markers: Currently available only by court order in some states.
Global Implications: U.S. allies like Canada and Australia already allow self-ID; this ruling could pressure holdout nations.
The Bigger Picture
The decision arrives amid a broader cultural battle over transgender rights, with over 20 states passing laws restricting gender-affirming care or ID changes. But Tuesday’s ruling sets a powerful federal precedent—one that could influence pending lawsuits against state-level bans.
As Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice at the ACLU, put it: "Today, the law finally caught up to what science and decency have long shown: Gender is who you say you are."
Publisher
%20(1).jpg)