President Trump returned to the Supreme Court on Friday to demand that the justice block the lower court’s ruling to force him to go Issuing a passport It is in line with the applicant’s own gender identity, saying that this is inconsistent with the “scientific reality”. Here’s what you need to know about passport gender identity cases:
Supreme Court Petition
Trump seeks subordinate rulings on passport policy:
- Attorney D. John Sauer said a passport is not a place for freedom of speech or personal expression
- “The U.S. passport is a government document; it represents the government’s speech, not the respondents,” he said.
- Saul asked the justice to issue a ruling from lower courts, while the case continues to develop
- Refusal to let the president formulate policies violate his powers
Policy changes
Trump revokes the choice of gender identity in the Biden era:
- President Biden creates gender-friendly passports that allow Americans to choose M or F or even X
- Trump issued an executive order revoked this and restored the passport to “accurately reflect the gender of the holder”
- Trump says it’s safer and safer than relying on “subjective self-awareness”
- New policy requires passports to reflect biological classification rather than gender identity
Legal argument
Administrative Framework as Presidential Foreign Policy Administration:
- “The policy is very legal. The constitution does not prohibit the government from defining gender based on the biological classification of individuals,” Thor told the justice.
- Application to require the High Court to block the lower court’s ruling on matters
- The government believes that the content of the passport belongs to the president’s constitutional foreign policy power
- Cases are a matter of government speech rather than personal rights
Lower court ruling
Federal judge blocked Trump’s passport restrictions:
- U.S. District Court Judge Julia Kobick
- She ruled that restrictions constitute illegal discrimination against gender, citing the 2020 Supreme Court case found employment discrimination against transgender people illegal
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit supports Judge Kobeck’s ruling
- Lower court found that policy violates constitutional protection against gender discrimination
Supreme Court precedent
The government cited recent trans rulings as support:
- Saar said the case is closer to the Supreme Court ruling last semester, involving medical treatment for transgender children
- In this case, the justices did not find gender discrimination in state laws that restrict such treatment.
- The government believes that this precedent supports their position on passport restrictions
- Courts are advised to be more receptive to government authorities’ arguments on transgender issues
Read more:
• Donald Trump asks Supreme Court to block gender identity passports
This article is written only based on Washington Times’ original reports and wire services with the help of generating artificial intelligence. For more information, please read our AI Policy Or contact Digital’s executive editor Ann Wog, at awog@washingtontimes.com
Available at the Washington Times AI Ethics News Editorial Office Committee aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.
