In a significant win for the Trump Administration, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on Thursday afternoon on the Trump Administration’s requirement that passport holders use their sex assigned at birth and that such requirements do not violate equal protection guarantees. While a brief, unsigned opinion issued on the interim docket, it represents a major ruling on the constitutional protections afforded to transgender individuals.
The case began with a challenge to an executive order issued on January 20, 2025, declaring that the federal government would only “recognize two sexes, male and female.” The order instructed the State Department to “require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”
The litigants alleged that the order and underlying policy were a denial of equal protection.
I previously discussed the Supreme Court’s upholding a Tennessee ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. One of the most notable aspects of this decision was the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.” However, the Court stressed that “This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasisuspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
In her concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rejected the claim:
The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so.3 To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex.
…Nor is the transgender population a “discrete group,” as our cases require.
…The boundaries of the group, in other words, are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Finally, holding that transgender people constitute a suspect class would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion.
…The conclusion that transgender individuals do not share the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of “a discrete group” is enough to demonstrate that transgender status does not define a suspect class.
…The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status. Rational-basis review applies, which means that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.
While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, I wrote at the time that the concurrence “likely speaks to the view of three or four other members on the Court.”
It now appears that it clearly did represent the majority’s view.
In this opinion, the Court rejects the rulings of U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on the injunction of the policy. Both courts would have forced the Trump Administration to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflect the sex designation of their choosing.
However, the Court ruled that “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.”
In rejecting the equal protection claim, the Court added that there is no evidence that a policy requiring a passport to display the holder’s biological sex can only be the result of “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” It further found that the challengers are unlikely to prevail under the Administrative Procedure Act as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The Trump administration is thus “likely to succeed on the merits” of its defense against the challengers’ claims, the court wrote. And because Kobick’s order “enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document,” the court said, the government “will ‘suffer[] a form of irreparable injury’” if the order is not paused.
That produced another fiery dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Jackson slammed her colleagues:
“The Court … fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.”
Jackson dismissed the opinion as a type of “back-of-the-napkin assessment” in a cursory opinion. She objected that, not only had the Administration not shown any irreparable harm absent emergency relief, but the challengers “have shown they will suffer concrete injuries if the Government’s Passport Policy is immediately enforced.” She concluded by claiming that “the Court’s failure to acknowledge the basic norms of equity jurisdiction is more than merely regrettable. It is an abdication of the Court’s duty to ensure that equitable standards apply equally to all litigants—to transgender people and the Government alike.”
The opinion substantially reinforced Barrett’s earlier position. While the government had the advantage of a case in an area where considerable deference is given to executive decision-making, the underlying equal protection holding is a major setback for advocates seeking to establish transgender status as protected in the same way as race or religion.
Passports are for identification purposes and to protect the country from enemies. They have to be accurate for that purpose. Misinformation of sex is not accurate, so not only unwanted but danger.
Equity justidiction is not now and never has been a constitutional principle and has no place in the
discussion. It’s a made up woke term with no substance. KJB is an embarrassment to this nation.
In college a friend of mine was filling out a form. In the place where they asked for “Sex:” she put “Every other Thursday”
Poor guy, in college I got 5 nights a week.
Anon’s Shrink – is that really true?
WITH YOURSELF!! BOB
An insatiable need for outside affirmation of one’s inner thoughts and convictions does not create a government obligation. Blacks do not have a right to reparations, rioters do not have a right to have their motives considered, and the deranged do not have a right to have reality altered.
>”An insatiable need for outside affirmation of one’s inner thoughts and convictions does not create a government obligation.”
Nor does it, necessarily, create a government obligation to prohibit it.
This SCOTUS ruling will not change some people’s ‘insatiable need for outside affirmation’ imo.
*I would just like to say it is my conviction that longer hair and other flamboyant affectations of appearance are nothing more than the male’s emergence from his drab camouflage into the gaudy plumage which is the birthright of his sex.
This SCOTUS ruling says absolutely nothing about anyone’s consensual sexual practices.
All that it correctly says is that official government documents reuire your sex to be stated as male or Female in acord with your DNA
DG
You posted a video the other day of a women getting arrested. You made a big deal that ICE were just taking anyone
Yet you have posted NOTHING after that. Me thinks you were wrong as usual.
Just like your claim that we still have tomahawk cruise missiles that carry nukes.
Look up some history next time. They were trashed after the US & RUSSIA SALT talks, many years ago.
Not bad
This is a good line from the majority opinion:
Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow. See 22 U. S. C. §211a.
That’s a zinger. Borders on sarcastic. Probably intended as a slap at the US district court for issuing the injunction, which requires the plaintiff to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
BTW, Section 211a says that the Secretary of State, in issuing passports, is required to follow “such rules as the President shall designate and prescribe.”
OT
“The lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard Rowland, 1920
The People’s Republic of China is not dissimilar to the American Republic save for the Constitution. The Founders established a severely restricted-vote republic under a Constitution that provides maximal freedom to individuals while severely limiting and restricting government. In 1789, voters must have been male, European, and 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. America is far off track and more communist than communist China due to the failure of the Supreme Court to support the Constitution. China’s national government is not elected through public voting; instead, it is chosen by a largely male Communist Party leadership within the National People’s Congress. One might conclude that China is republican and rational while devoid of the benefits of the Constitution.
✅ China
Legal status
Homosexuality is legal (decriminalized in 1997). It was officially removed from China’s list of mental illnesses in 2001. Being transgender is not illegal, and some medical transition options exist.
Public debate / expression
Some discussion is allowed, especially in academic or medical contexts. LGBTQ+ activism is restricted. Many advocacy organizations have been shut down. Online content that is seen as “promoting” LGBTQ+ topics can be censored or removed. Same-sex marriage is not legal.
Reality
Urban areas (e.g., Shanghai, Beijing) can be more tolerant. The government discourages the topic as part of campaigns promoting “traditional family values.”
So: legally allowed, socially mixed, politically sensitive, but discussion does exist.
✅ China
China does not have national policies allowing transgender students to use restrooms or locker rooms that match their gender identity. Schools operate under strict, traditional, biological-sex–based rules. Publicly pushing for transgender restroom access is seen as politically sensitive and is usually censored. Some elite universities have quietly created single-stall “gender-neutral” restrooms, but this is rare and not for elementary or high schools.
Bottom line: In elementary and high schools, restrooms and locker rooms are based on biological sex, and males are not allowed to use female facilities.
– ChatGPT
If its so great, why are you in the USA?
If the Supreme Court had supported and upheld the Constitution and Bill of Rights, America would function as the restricted-vote republic envisioned by the Founders, characterized by a severely limited government and maximized individual freedom.
Alas, while the legislative and executive branches were expected to overreach, it was the judicial branch that failed America.
I noticed that bias in ai’s too. way left bent, will even argue it. The training data is media sources and if you tell it to ignore this or that one it finds another.
I note S. Meyer’s correct reference to “progressive language” in an earlier comment today.
I cringe every time I hear a commercial that starts with, “Your shipping manager left to find themselves…” (by ‘Indeed,’ a modern version of what we used to call employment agencies).
I do not believe the commercial’s script was an unfortunate error in language (it would have been caught). I believe it was an intentional curtsy to the new “inclusivity” in language in order to avoid any “politically incorrect” reference to, -preference for, -or implication of, -any particular sex or gender. It is intentional (as in my example, which clearly indicates a singular noun, “Your shipping manager”) and it is increasingly common in contemporary mass media communications (the use of “they” and “them” despite visual imagery or story line clearly referring to a “singular” person).
While (back to the commercial) it might be easier to not have to say “himself or herself,” the impact of this trend on the English language (let alone on teachers trying to teach it) has truly become a burden.
And speaking of passports and foreign travel, many, many, many countries (particularly in Europe) maintain gender/sex preferences in their words/language. For example, the English article “the” becomes either “le” or “la” in French, depending on the noun that follows. I doubt that the French will so readily adopt this prostitution of language as we have done in this country.
This seems trite, for which I apologize. But America had once been known for its advanced, refined and specific language so pure and definitive. (“The English language remains the dominant global lingua franca, influencing communication across business, education, technology, and culture.” https://ecenglish.com/en/blog/news/70-statistics-about-the-english-language/ )
Now we increasingly find ourselves thrown in a barrel of porridge/mush/i.e., the common denominator (which I frequently refer to) —attempting to placate and oblige all the demands and wishes placed upon the many by the few, instead of sticking to our standard(s).
“The English language remains the dominant global lingua franca, influencing communication across business, education, technology, and culture.”
This reminded me of an air traffic control recording from the 80’s:
A Lufthansa pilot was making a routine, short haul flight inside Germany when it was time to land. Switching the radio to the frequency used by air traffic control at the airport (the frequency that everyone taking off or landing there would be using) the pilot, speaking German, identified his aircraft and requested permission to land.
After a brief pause, the air traffic controller replied that he would have to repeat his request, this time in English.
The pilot was not happy. “I don’t understand. I’m a German pilot flying for a German airline and landing in a German city. Why must I make the request in English?”
Without hesitation, another pilot on that channel (but with an obvious British accent) keyed the mic and said “Because you lost the bloody war!”
and yet….and yet…a 100 year old British vet today stated on Good Morning Britain that it wasnt worth it given the current state of the UK.
Is he now in UK jail for his words?
Why use English? Reduction of ambiguity, uniformity, and standardization. What if the controller in Frankfurt is an ISIS mole from Syria who knows nothing but Arabic?
The “arc of history” that Democrats talk about is the process of making as many people as possible members of some “minority” victimized and persecuted by the heartless majority.
They have succeeded in making African-Americans such a favored group, and almost made women such a minority (as paradoxical as that might seem). They have tried to make “Hispanics” ( a term that applies to a language group) into victims. Now, they have latched on to the fictional “trans-people” as a victim group. Someday everyone will be a victim and there will be no “majority” left. One hopes the S Ct sees this trajectory and refuses to go along with the game.
So very well said –
Scotus agrees with you…
HEY! What happened to the uncategorized Comey article with the prostate health ad?
^^& the burn bags were gleaned and many people are being dragged in. Remember the doors were locked? Everyone kept out? Destruction of evidence?
I would think that from a governmental interest for personal identifications, a pretty hard requirement is for an identification, widely used, to be as objective as possible. Objectivity for identification should trace to immutable characteristics as much as possible. In United States v. Skrmetti, Justice Barrett wrote, “To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex”. This gets to the heart of the elusive nature of transgenderism. Clothing and cosmetics, hormonal treatments, and cosmetic surgery are all that can be done. These, however artfully performed and perhaps deemed necessary, are completely insufficient to change one’s sex. In the case where a person dies or in a criminal investigation, there is a governmental interest in using immutable characteristics to identify that person.
With a nod to Justice Jackson’s fairness metric of “spilling of ink”, I am puzzled by her statement, “…to ensure that equitable standards apply equally to all litigants…”. First of all I am not sure what standards to which she refers unless it is the amount of ink spilled on behalf of both litigants by the justices. Her charge seems to be that certain members of the court applied equitable standards (what ever those might be) unequally to the litigants. How could one not when the interests and claims of the litigants are grounded on such different legal principles? It is clear that the more ink Justice Jackson spills that greater and more entertaining legal lessons will be available for legal scholars, pundits, as well as the hoi polloi such as my self to “spill ink” about for years to come.
Well said, Arnold. Identification only works when it’s built on immutable, verifiable traits. That’s why the Court got it right in grounding equal protection on biological reality rather than personal perception. The government’s duty isn’t to affirm self-concept but to maintain reliability in identification. Without that objectivity, both legal accountability and public trust start to break down.
*. Olly, does the preamble to the Constitution have any part in law?
Sure, I’m familiar with it — the Preamble lays out purpose, not power. It’s an important compass, but not a source of law. So what’s the point you’re driving at with that question?
Nature’s creator, Olly. It references what can be empirical evidence in nature– male and female. It’s what is used following nature. Male and female reproduce as empirical evidence. The founders weren’t concerned with anomalies.
Nature agrees people have 5 toes on each foot and 5 fingers. The entire nature of doesn’t change by a minority of birth defects. Birth defects are considered in law as physical hindrances in buildings, sidewalks, etc that do not also hinder the majority when access is provided. There is no burden to nature’s laws.
There can be an argument when schizophrenics unable to care for themselves on the street and homeless as disabled. This stems from human compassion for the ill and given as not a burden to the majority, no need to declare a right.
Nature’s creator… the majority with compassion for the disabled. No, nature does not entertain the idea that gender, sex is mutable, it is immutable or no one would be here!
*. Olly, it’s like a thumbprint, XX or XY. DNA isn’t tested at birth.
There are xxy or xyy and others but these are birth defects, chromosome damage and individuals cannot reproduce normally as with intersex. Sometimes the defect doesn’t reveal until puberty. The absence of gonads of either kind is present. The world can’t be controlled by birth defects.
I’m a sighted person myself or not blind. I refuse to remove my eyes.
Ovaries and testes fully functioning are important so Lia Thomas is a man. It’s a preference in his case. Personally if there’s a question map the DNA. XY + birth defect can be listed.
If you’re a fully grown man but wear dresses go with the DNA map.
People stop caring when you go too far. The intersex people jumped off a cliff. They included people who aren’t truly intersex and demanded every child should question sexuality.
Folks, segregation is the answer.
Compulsory integration is irrefutably unconstitutional.
^^^^ I don’t like men in dresses. I’m a bigot. I can’t help it. I was born a bigot.
“We the People of the United States,…secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY….”
– The American Founders, Preamble, 1789
______________________________________________
Not those who “could not be admitted to become citizens,” not “fake” asylum seekers, not illegal alien invaders, not parasites, but OURSELVES and OUR POSTERITY.
Gene code isn’t being used either. It’s visual cues only. Thumbprint is an identifier by individual. I’m telling you, they want legal reason to get yours and mine genetics.
Birth sex is fine by certificate based on visual clues the doc uses to make a guess cause you’re not getting my genetic code.
Sure grocery prices are crazy and nobody can buy a house but Trump solved 9 wars today, got Madagascar to give us 4 trillion dollars, is building us a ballroom and triumphal arch, and renovating his jet from Qatar while planning invasions of Venezuela and Argentina.
That’s what I voted for, and Trump is delivering !!!!!!!
George
You are still talking about that jet. You lost that one what months ago.
You lost your mind years ago.
Maybe you. Me, that would be no.
Rabble:
I feel we need a sign at the top of every comments section: “Don’t feed the trolls. They will become dependent on human interaction.”
Just stop responding to these chucklenuts, and eventually they will go away. Carry on conversations around them. Act like they don’t exist.
And to the troll, right to free speech does not mean I am required to listen.
Please provide a citation to the Constitution wherein the government is mandated to tax for or provide groceries, homes, or anything else other than debt, defense, and general welfare, which consists of only security and basic infrastructure, understanding that no two people have any desire to eat the same food prepared in the same way, such as the rations obtained in a military mess hall, or to live in a military barracks.
Surprise….
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a central Ohio school district cannot punish students who identify transgender students by their ‘biological pronouns,’ citing concerns over free speech and discrimination over certain viewpoints.
And you have no source. The shit you make up…
It’s in the news, you can look it up, which you really ought to do before accusing him of making stuff up. For example:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/appeals-court-sides-parent-group-fight-ohio-school-127282992
OT
Are the Democrats conducting a redux of the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution?
Stupid comment.
It appears the Asylum is returning the insane to their chambers.
The story could go as such: there was a 1953 Kaiser Dragon that was brought to the garage for surgery, the surgeon removed all the exterior and interior modeling at which time the surgeon determined the support structure needed changed to meet expectations, a new frame, motor and running gear were designed and built to specifics, then all the modeling reinstalled. Would the newly remodeled 1953 Kaiser Dragon have a new identification? If the designer was farther out then other surgeons and installed a Wankle engine, then the designer could advertised: for sale a 1953 Kaiser Dragon assembled with all new assemblies and a Wankle (WANKLE as defined by Merrian Webster: unsteady, unstable fickle, irresolute). Or we could say it was a Mazda 737C taken to the garage to remove its Wankel.
Finally, ‘You can take the boy out of the country, but you can’t take the country out of the boy.’
If trannies are upset about this, they can always go to their favorite place to support, Gaza, where the ruling Hamas leadership will be more sympathetic and will throw them a roof party.
Oldman
Yep, they will get all kinds of love from Gaza.
Look, it the rep-tile trans bashers.
Funny, its always the reps with sexual inadequacies that are the vilest.
Dustoff tell us your sexual experiences in the army. Oldman, i sit true whjat yo do with sheep?
Oh look, Anon getting all jealous and sheeeeit. Tell us where the bad man touches you…
So ano, you admit you know nothing about Muslims and their beliefs.
Typical lib. so dumb you would sell the rope that some folks would hang you
Rabble:
Or, they can go “Escape TO New York.” Islam is on the rise there, and bonus, the powers in charge there will be able to judge roof parties based on how closely they can recreate Jackson Pollock in pavement “graffiti”!
They would love to get sodomized as a daily punishment…
Well done SCOTUS. The notion that a “class” that claims sex is not an immutable characteristic seeks protection as an immutable class is absurd, and it’s good to see the Court say so.
Democrats should donate their brains to science. Scientists should donate their brains to something other than politics.
“I’ll tell you right, as God as my witness, if we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison,” Bannon told the crowd Wednesday
Gee, do you think Bannon thinks what they did was illegal?
I guess the same could be asked of all of those Biden pre-emptively pardoned. But, fo course, the point in both cases is not that those worried about prosecution believe they are criminals, but rather that they are concerned, rightly or wrongly, that a vindictive govt would use its full power to prosecute them.
no, No, and NO! You don’t get it, factually-based analysis of motive is lost on your conformation-bias adled brain: Bannon correctly refers to the fact that THEY will begin their own “retribution” campaign, their own prosecution of political dissenters, and revenge against rivals. Revenge, not wrong-doing, will be the reason for the left’s future political VIOLENCE and law-fare.
Guilt or innocence doesn’t matter to Democrats. Lawfare for the sake of punishment is their mantra.
Nothing… Just like Trump. But that didn’t stop you crazy libs
“I’ll tell you right now, as a devout Catholic, that I haven’t taken a dime and my son Hunter hasn’t done anything wrong; furthermore I will not pardon him if he’s found guilty and headed for prison beside Bannon”
Gee… do you think Biden’s Birthing Boyz actually know what that word Illegal means?
Can I ask you a question? TELL ME WHO CARES WHAT BANNON THINKS?
Rabble:
Never paid much attention to Bannon. I see him how my sister sees Alex Jones: a snake who got in the right crowd once, and can’t fathom the concept of being evicted. He will keep making noise because he believes someone is taking him seriously.
(imo, Jones ended up being right about a lot of his points. yes, he went a bit overboard with SH, but even that ruling is politically motivated.)
“Crazy Abe” would have imposed martial law by now.
Whatta bunch of effing crap! I can just see one of these stupid furries doing this in the future. I am moved to do an Irish Poem!
Cat, Man Do???
Or, No Hard Felines???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a pervert named Matt –
Who identified himself as a cat!
But his passport said “Human”,
And that left him fumin’ –
And his case at the SCOTUS fell flat!
Excellent
Squeeky! You’re back! And you always leave us feline fine. 😸 🐾
“…the challengers ‘have shown they will suffer concrete injuries if the Government’s Passport Policy is immediately enforced.’” Ket-aaaaaaaan-Jeeeeeee’s, mixed metaphor reveals (AGAIN!) her lack of intellect and aptitude for complex matters.
In addition, the extreme-left’s transgender protection racket [as represented by Sotomayor and Kagan] is simply another way to remove parental rights-to and custody-of their children. It is absolutely embarrassing that women are the tools for leading this destruction of society.
“concrete injuries”
Isn’t that what George Zimmerman suffered?
….incoming….IMPACT with concrete, bless that boy, who could’ve been Obama’s son.
Barret’s oppinion is correct but is more broadly applicable than even she applies.
This entire cottage industry of protected classes MUST GO
MLK’s remarks that he wanted a world where his children were judged by their character not the color of their skin goes beyond skin color – to everything.
You can not end discrimination by discriminating.
Ultimately you can not end discrimination – and outside of governemnt itself – where the government is required to be blind to our differences, we canj not and should not end discrimination.
If 100 people apply for a job – the employer MUST reject 99. Many on the right like to say the decision should be basedunco on merit – and that is fine as an aspiration – but anyone who has ever had to review 100 job applicants for 1 job KNOWS that the time and resources do not exist to hire the “best person” – usually all that is required is someone that can do the job.
We discriminate 1000 ways in what we do every day. Dragging govenrment in to review our daily choices and try to determine which were legitimate and which were not is itself a massive infringement on liberty.
All Law protecting private people from private discrimination – from discrimination in employment and housing and banking and … is both WRONG, unconstitutional, intrusive into domains govenrment does not belong in, inefficient and stupid.
Discrimination – meaning making choices for reasons that we deem improper ends when those making them recognize that or when the free market punishes bad choices. Government can not legitimately insert itself.
That does not mean we can not be angry, or outraged over the choices of private individuals and employers that offend us.
It just means we can not use FORCE – aka govenrment to respond to our outrage.
Government is not our parent, it is not their to teach is proper behavior.