Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has filed an amicus brief with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals that supports the Trump administration’s policy of listing biological sex on U.S. passports.
Indiana is one of 24 states, as well as the Arizona Legislature, that joined the amicus brief. Rokita authored the brief and his office issued a news release regarding the brief, which was filed Monday.
The brief calls for reversal of a Massachusetts district court’s preliminary injunction blocking the policy in Ashton Orr, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al.
It argues that the Constitution permits the government to define “sex” as the objective, biological characteristic of male or female for official documents.
“Passports are official government property, and allowing self-defined entries would create chaos, inconsistency, and endless administrative problems while undermining accurate identification.” Rokita said in a news release. “Government records must reflect verifiable biological reality — the same standard used for centuries — rather than ever-changing personal perceptions that could lead to unlimited options and unreliable documentation.”
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued the injunction in April after President Donald Trump signed an executive order at the beginning of the year that declared that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”
The order directed the Secretary of State to make “changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports . . . accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” as that term is defined in the order.
Seven transgender or non-binary Americans brought a lawsuit in Massachusetts to challenge the executive order and the State Department’s passport policy.
According to the attorney general’s office, the coalition of states signing the brief contend that recording biological sex aligns with centuries of historical practice, dictionary definitions, Supreme Court precedent, and rational government interests in uniform, verifiable records.
The brief also highlights the U.S. Supreme Court’s November stay of the injunction.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.