December 2025

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights

Posted on December 4, 2025December 4, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights:

Overview:

On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay, thus allowing the Department of State to continue to enforce a policy requiring all new U.S. passports to list the sex assigned at birth rather than a gender‐identity marker or an “X” designation.

The policy reversed 33 years of previous practice which allowed applicants to select gender markers consistent with their identity.

A lower federal court had preliminarily enjoined the new policy, finding potential irreparable harm to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals (a position supported by the three Justices who dissented from the stay decision); the Supreme Court’s stay suspends that injunction while the underlying litigation continues.

In short: the Court’s action does not dispose of the merits, but it immediately permits the government’s policy to be enforced while appeals proceed—raising significant legal and practical implications for identity recognition and travel. Notably, the Court’s opinion also indicated its preliminary view that the Government is likely to succeed in the case.

Effect on Military Service Members and Federal Employees

From a legal vantage point, this opinion is about much more than a technical change in the content of travel documents, it constitutes a meaningful shift in how identity, service, and federal recognition intersect for service members and federal employees who are transgender or nonbinary.

At its core, the policy change presents three principal categories of legal concern: (1) mobility and assignment risk; (2) documentary alignment and clearance/fitness burdens; and (3) the doctrinal posture of transgender rights under equal protection and administrative law.

Mobility and Assignment Risk

For a service member or federal employee, passports are not mere travel credentials, they can be mission-essential equipment. When a member’s official identity document reflects a gender marker inconsistent with their lived identity, the risk is operational: at foreign borders, in allied nation environments, on joint exercises, and during global deployments. A passport listing only the sex assigned at birth may immediately out a transgender or nonbinary individual, raising questions of security, host-nation reception, and force protection. The Court’s stay thus has the practical effect of making some assignments riskier for those individuals, even if their other credentials (military ID, DEERS, CAC, etc.) align with their gender identity.

Documentary Alignment and Federal Service Burden

The military and federal employment systems rely on coherence and consistency among personnel records, security clearances, travel documents, medical records, and identity verification systems. When a passport marker diverges from other records, it introduces friction: clearance adjudicators may wonder whether mismatched documents signal concealment or instability. Commanders may hesitate to send qualified individuals into roles where identity mismatches could degrade trust. Transgender and nonbinary persons, therefore, face a unique documentary burden: while their performance may meet standards, their identity alignment becomes a persistent administrative stressor.

Additionally, the policy sends a signal: even if the individual has changed their name, corrected records, and deployed without incident, the federal government now says that their passport will reflect their birth-sex, not their gender identity. That structural disjunction, between recognition in uniform and misrecognition in travel documents, raises novel career and administrative risks.

Doctrinal Posture: Equal Protection & Administrative Law

Legally, Trump v. Orr is important for how it frames transgender/nonbinary rights. In the district-court litigation underlying the stay (Orr v. Trump), the plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection component, the Due Process right to travel, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious agency action. The government argued that listing sex at birth is a factual administrative classification and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay suggests that at least on the emergency docket it viewed the government’s interest in uniformity of government issuance and foreign-affairs deference as meriting temporary relief.

For military and federal employees, the doctrinal import is this: if the Court treats this kind of identity regulation as subject only to rational-basis review, then future policies impacting transgender and nonbinary individuals, whether in fitness standards, deployment eligibility, health care access, or records changes, may face a less rigorous judicial review threshold. The bureaucratic authority to define which identities count may grow larger.

Specific Implications for Service Members and Federal Employees

Service members with deployments, TDYs, or exchange billets abroad may now face additional barriers if their passport mis-identifies them. Commands may delay or cancel assignments citing “logistical or diplomatic risk.”
Noncommissioned and commissioned personnel seeking security clearances could face increased scrutiny if their records show inconsistencies between their identity and travel documentation—creating an unspoken impediment to advancement.
Veterans transitioning to federal civilian employment or contractor roles may see their mobility and international travel constrained, and their identity-related documentation mismatches may reduce eligibility for roles that require international travel or clearance.
The ruling signals to federal agencies that policies prerequisite to identity recognition (e.g., gender marker changes, name changes, affirming health care) may be vulnerable to future roll-backs or reinterpretations, complicating long-term planning for transgender and nonbinary federal employees.

Conclusion

While the stay in Trump v. Orr is temporary and the litigation remains ongoing, the immediate outcome is clear: the federal government will now issue passports that ignore gender identity in favor of sex assigned at birth. For transgender and nonbinary individuals in uniform or federal service, this decision shifts mobility from a right to a potential vulnerability, imposes administrative burdens, and signals that identity recognition by the state can be unilaterally narrowed. From a policy-defense standpoint, any advocacy for trans and nonbinary service members must now treat passports and travel documents as frontline rights, not peripheral concerns.

Key Legal Resources & References

Supreme Court Trump Passport Gender Ruling Washington Post
Orr v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass.). Case Law
Trump v. Orr, Application 25A319, Supreme Court. Supreme Court
Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Whitehouse.gov
ACLU Press Release, “Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy.” American Civil Liberties Union
Lambda Legal, “Identity Document Guidance for Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender-Nonconforming + Intersex People.” Lambda Legal

Army Physician Testimonial: How David P. Sheldon, PLLC Protected My Career and Medical License

Posted on December 4, 2025December 4, 2025 by Becky Haugen

From Contentious Medical Board to a Clean Professional Slate

Issue: Contentious military medical board, MEB/PEB, and protection of medical license

I first contacted David Sheldon’s PLLC when it was becoming clear that my medical board was turning contentious. As a physician, the military was actively working to re-write the record to inappropriately retain me.

During the medical board process David fought a libelous NARSUM and objectively false commander’s statement among other challenges. Colleagues were concerned that I would be retained because of the Army’s history of retaining physicians “no matter what,” and I shared these concerns based on my own observations. David made the wise decision to bring in outside consultants to review the records, come to independent conclusions and testify at the formal medical board hearing.

With David’s arguments and expert witnesses (combatting my command’s best efforts to retain me), my case was found “unfit” and I am currently in the process of being honorably separated from service with a clean professional slate. He worked hard to simultaneously separate me and protect my medical license (as much as possible) and I faced no adverse professional action on separation, which is a remarkable outcome.

I could not recommend David’s counsel highly enough. I am certain that without his representation that I would have been retained and am not sure if I would have survived (without exaggeration) the remainder of my contract. If I needed to do it over again, I would choose representation by this firm. If you’re a physician seeking medical board representation, this is a group with real success & what impressed me was that at each step he had a plan for escalation if plan A, B and C failed.

-CPT Dr. (RET), USA MC

After Years of Legal Barriers, Client Secures Critical Breakthrough in Mandamus Fight to Restore Full Appellate Review

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Becky Haugen

In a case defined by extraordinary perseverance and complex jurisdictional obstacles, a former Guantanamo detainee represented by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has taken a major step forward in the effort to secure the full measure of appellate review guaranteed under federal law.

For more than a decade, the client has fought, often against procedural roadblocks not of their own making, to obtain a lawful review of their conviction by the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), as required under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). Despite years of delay, shifting interpretations of waiver rules, repeated abeyances, and a novel assertion of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the client has refused to abandon the pursuit of lawful, congressionally mandated review.

Today’s development underscores one truth: the client’s courage, resilience, and insistence on the rule of law have kept this case alive when institutions failed to act.

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

The client’s path to justice has been anything but direct. Though Congress established mandatory appellate review for military commission cases, the procedural history of this matter has been marked by:

Multiple delays and long periods of abeyance at the USCMCR
Government-created procedural roadblocks to obtain the record necessary for appeal, requiring mandamus intervention
A eventual dismissal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, despite the client’s transfer being conducted under a formal diplomatic agreement—not flight, evasion, or refusal to appear and client remaining subject to lawful extradition

At every stage, the client remained steadfast. At every barrier, the client continued to assert the right Congress guarantees.

“This case has always been about ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored,” said Annie Morgan. “Our client has shown extraordinary strength in the face of procedural obstacles that should never have occurred. Their resilience is the reason we are still moving forward. And we will continue to fight until the statutory right to review is finally fulfilled.”

Why This Case Matters

This fight extends well beyond a single appeal. At its core, it speaks to:

The long-standing brokenness of the military commissions systems;
The duty of tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction Congress mandates; and
The fundamental principle that no person, no matter the forum, should lose their rights due to administrative delay or misapplied doctrine.

Congress was explicit:
The USCMCR “shall review the record in each case submitted to it.” (10 U.S.C. § 950f(d)).

When agencies fail to act, the courts must intervene. That is the purpose of mandamus—and the reason this client’s fight continues.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier national practice focused on military law, federal employment, veteran’s rights, and the defense of service members across all uniformed services. Our team litigates before military commissions, federal courts, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the MSPB, and agencies across the United States. We are committed to protecting those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release provides general information regarding ongoing litigation and does not offer legal advice. No confidential client details have been disclosed. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.