Orr v. Trump

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · September 4, 2025 · No. 25-1579

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of a district court's preliminary injunction against the Department of State's new passport policy requiring biological sex markers. The court found that the government failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Equal Protection Clause, emphasizing that agency actions implementing presidential directives remain subject to judicial review when discretion exists. Furthermore, the court concluded that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs due to the immediate and irreparable harms they would face if the policy were enforced. As a result, the stay was denied, preserving the status quo while the underlying appeal proceeds.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Writing for the Court
Montecalvo; Rikelman; Aframe
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Decision date
September 4, 2025
Docket number
25-1579
Procedural posture
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting preliminary injunction
Standard of review
Arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedure Act
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, United States of America v. Ashton Orr et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

administrative procedure actjudicial review of agency actionequal protectionadministrative lawappellate procedure

Practice areas

administrative lawcivil rightsconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Department's Passport Policy is subject to APA review and is arbitrary and capricious.
  2. Whether the Passport Policy violates the Equal Protection Clause by reflecting unconstitutional animus toward transgender Americans.

Holdings

  1. The government failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or a favorable balance of hardships, and therefore the motion for a stay is denied.

Key quotations

The government has moved for a stay pending its appeal of several orders entered by the district court that preliminarily enjoined the U.S. Department of State ("Department") and its Secretary from enforcing a policy ("Passport Policy"), promulgated by the Department in connection with an executive order ("Executive Order") issued by President Donald J. Trump, that would require U.S. passports to state the biological sex of their bearer at birth. (at start)

Factual background

The Department of State adopted a passport policy requiring the sex marker on passports to reflect the bearer’s biological sex at birth, eliminating the prior option for self‑identification. Plaintiffs, a class of transgender and non‑binary individuals, challenged the policy as arbitrary, capricious, and motivated by animus.

Procedural history

The district court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of State from enforcing a passport policy that required passports to list the bearer’s biological sex. The government appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal; the First Circuit denied the stay.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…