Transgender and Nonbinary Individuals Challenge Executive Order on Passports

A group of seven transgender and nonbinary individuals have taken legal action in response to a recent executive order signed by former President Donald Trump. The order, which was issued shortly after Trump took office, effectively bans the State Department from issuing passports with a gender marker of "X". This has prompted a federal lawsuit, filed on February 7th, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the policy change.

The plaintiffs, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane, have brought this class action lawsuit with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, and the law firm Covington & Burling LPP. Named as defendants in the case are Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as the latter directed the enforcement of the new passport policy.

In June 2021, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the State Department would permit the issuance of gender-neutral passports and documents for U.S. citizens born abroad. This policy marked a significant step forward for many in the LGBTQ+ community seeking recognition and validation of their gender identities.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, previously filed a successful federal lawsuit in 2015 after their application for a passport with an "X" gender marker was denied. This case set a precedent, and in October 2021, Zzyym received the first gender-neutral passport issued by the United States. The Department's policy officially took effect on April 11, 2022, allowing individuals to select "X" as a gender marker on their passports without requiring medical documentation.

However, the executive order signed by Trump reversed this progress. Rubio's subsequent directive instructed State Department personnel to "suspend any application requesting an 'X' sex marker and to halt further processing until additional guidance is provided." This decision has left many individuals and families in limbo, uncertain about their ability to secure travel documents that accurately reflect their identities.

The lawsuit argues that the executive order is not only abrupt and discriminatory but also poses a danger to established U.S. passport policy. It asserts that the order is "unlawful and unconstitutional," discriminating against individuals based on their sex and transgender status. The lawsuit further contends that the policy change is rooted in "impermissible animus" and fails to meet any standard of judicial scrutiny. It ultimately seeks to challenge the erasure of the existence and reality of transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people.

Reid Solomon-Lane, a North Adams, Massachusetts resident and one of the plaintiffs, has spoken out about the personal impact of the policy. In an ACLU press release, Solomon-Lane expressed his concerns, stating, "I have lived virtually my entire adult life as a man. Everyone in my personal and professional life knows me as a man, and any stranger on the street who encountered me would view me as a man."

Solomon-Lane, who is married and a father of three, fears the repercussions of an inconsistent passport designation. "If my passport were to reflect a sex designation that is inconsistent with who I am, I would be forcibly outed every time I used my passport for travel or identification, causing potential risk to my safety and my family’s safety," he explained. He emphasized the threat that the executive order and ensuing passport policy pose to the safety and well-being of his family.

This legal challenge represents a critical moment for the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals, as it highlights the broader issues of recognition, safety, and equality. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for passport policy and the lives of those affected by these changes.