\n<\/p>\n
BOSTON \u2014 A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enacting a policy that bans the use of the \u201cX\u201d marker used by many nonbinary people on passports as well as the changing of gender markers.<\/p>\n
In an executive order signed in January, the president used a narrow definition of the sexes instead of a broader conception of gender. The order says a person is male or female and it rejects the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender. The framing is in line with many conservatives\u2019 views but at odds with major medical groups and policies under former President Joe Biden.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick, who was appointed by Biden, sided with the American Civil Liberties Union\u2019s motion for a preliminary injunction, which stays the action as the lawsuit plays out.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny,\u201d Kobick wrote. \u201cThat standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ACLU, which sued the Trump administration on behalf of five transgender Americans and two nonbinary plaintiffs, said the new policy would effectively mean transgender, nonbinary and intersex Americans could not get an accurate passport.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe all have a right to accurate identity documents, and this policy invites harassment, discrimination, and violence against transgender Americans who can no longer obtain or renew a passport that matches who they are,\u201d ACLU lawyer Sruti Swaminathan said.<\/p>\n
In response to the lawsuit, the Trump administration argued the passport policy change \u201cdoes not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution.\u201d They also contended that the president has broad discretion in setting passport policy and that plaintiffs would not be harmed by the policy, since they are still free to travel abroad.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n