92 Comments
User's avatar
Talia Perkins's avatar

It sucks. The decision is plainly contrary to constitutional principles. Not a lot to say except impeachment isn't only for Presidents.

There are parts of the US federal code that provide even for the death penalty for those who participate in a conspiracy to deny Americans their constitutionally protected liberties.

At least for some social conservatives, prosecution for that has to happen.

Expand full comment
Night Folks's avatar

Clearly corrupt SCOTUS judges MUST be impeached and removed, then tried for their blatant bigotry.

In the meantime… what fights for our rights can the ACLU muster? Last night’s blue sweep offers some hope, but this is awful, awful news…

Expand full comment
Pam P's avatar

From the shadow docket. The SCOTUS traitors don’t even take the time to explain their ruling— because they know it sucks. Cowards.

Expand full comment
Jacob Hale's avatar

While I was expecting this, it is a shock to my system to know that I am, in effect, stuck in this country the government of which wants me not to exist.

Expand full comment
Sheeby's avatar

May they reap what they sow.

Expand full comment
Celeste's avatar

This is just pointlessly cruel. Sad.

It’s utterly absurd to me that they refuse to see the obvious discriminatory intent and go out of their way to ignore it.

Expand full comment
April Razz's avatar

welp it was only a matter of time. i finally got mine a whole week ago and couldn't even really be happy about it bc i knew it probably wouldn't last. but yknow it totally feels like they intentionally stalled it until after the recent elections just to try to rob as much joy as possible. truly wish everybody involved an increasingly unlikely and bizarre series of horrible accidents 🙏

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

Hopefully they dont undo the Orr passports already issued. They'd previously stated it would cost approximately $130 and 1 hour of personnel time per record to reissue. Wouldn't put it past them but still a chance it remains valid.

Expand full comment
April Razz's avatar

i absolutely think they'll try their best to

Expand full comment
Alex's avatar

They'd rather send money to bail out Argentina than use pre allocated funds for SNAP, so yeah, hard to disagree.

Expand full comment
sara sunland's avatar

I keep hoping that divine intervention would take these bums out painfully because of the pain they inflict on others! This karma crap doesn’t work fast enough to stop these soulless demons from bringing it down on others!

AND I DOUBT THERE WILL BE FAIR OR EVEN ELECTIONS AT ALL IN OUR FUTURE ‼️‼️ These demons won’t give up control unless it’s wrested from their dead little hands!

Expand full comment
Sarah F's avatar

If there really is a god, it's either a mean SOB or a lousy shot.

Expand full comment
sara sunland's avatar

That’s how my life goes!

Expand full comment
sara sunland's avatar

Or like some believe, a trickster!

Expand full comment
Tracy's avatar

My kids live here, and I’m never leaving them. If this frcking country and a majority of voters want me to die, then just come and get me.

This death by 1000 cuts is ruinous and intolerable.

…… Oh, right… THE CRUELTY IS THE POINT

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

The Shameful Six can eat my entire ass.

Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan need to start staging walk-outs when they know they can't affect the outcome of these Shitter Docket rulings. To even participate in the process is giving these lawless fascist fucks a veneer of legitimacy they do not deserve.

Expand full comment
Stacy Dudovitz's avatar

Emotionally I agree.

But consider...

If they walked out then their dissents would not be part of the public record. I think it's more important that they go on record. History will then judge accordingly...

Sometimes the long game is the only game you get to play.

Expand full comment
Joan the Dork's avatar

They're on the record regardless- it's just a matter of 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 record. The 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 record is irrelevant right now- almost no one outside the legal profession reads court decisions or dissents in full, and few people beyond that field read them at all. Their words, however incisive or insightful, are rarely reported in the press.

The soap box would be a 𝘸𝘢𝘺 more powerful platform for the minority Justices right now than the bench is. Behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, they're nearly impotent.

But... three Supreme Court Justices solemnly filing out of the building to hold a press conference on the front steps of the Court itself, condemning the actions of their rogue colleagues forcefully and before the eyes of the world, even as the latest bought-and-paid-for ruling is handed down- now 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 a dissent for the history books, not just the law books. It'd be something with no precedent in living memory. It would shock the country, enrage the whole of the Republican party and their apparatchiks in the media, and get We The People 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 about the decisions this canker sore of a Court keeps rubber-stamping in the shadows.

Expand full comment
Tony D's avatar

That orange asshole got three justices added and they turned this country into Christian fascism

Expand full comment
Chrissy  Ulrey's avatar

Thank you for your super quick reporting of this, Erin. I wish it were better news, but grateful for your work.

Expand full comment
Terra M.'s avatar

My passport expires in November 2026. I guess I'll have to live without a passort after that. It must be even shittier for those without a proper passport at all.

Expand full comment
sara sunland's avatar

Even better, leave the country before it expires! But he is probably going to take that option away because he already discussed preventing us from leaving before!

Expand full comment
Terra M.'s avatar

I have been considering that and doing the necessary research ever since Cheeto Mussolini was inaugurated. This might speed plans up.

Expand full comment
sara sunland's avatar

Me too! Trying to sell my house first, but no one is even buying now unless you give it away!

Expand full comment
Michelle Paquette's avatar

The “sex” marker was not originally on US passports. It was added in 1977 on recommendation from an international standards body, to address difficulties that passport control officers had in verifying identity, given the androgynous fashions in clothing and hair introduced several years earlier.

The passport control officer has to determine if the person standing before them is the person identified on the passport, along with all the other necessary administrative tasks they must complete, and has to do so within a minute or so. Reverting the sex marker of an intersex or transgender person to the sex as identified at birth doesn’t help the officer at all, as the sex marker conflicts with the presentation of the person before them.

The officer may see a person with full beard and mustache, well muscled and somewhat hairy, and that “F” sex marker just establishes a conflict that is difficult to resolve, and slows down processing considerably. Even a strip search won’t be useful if the person before the officer has done a full medical transition, which is why the US State Department started changing markers in 1992 for individuals who had completed medical transition.

Verifying the sex marker under the proposed rule would require performing a full karyotype using multiple samples (as a person who had a bone marrow transplant or who has given birth to a male child may show both XX and XY chromosomes, and an intersex person may show XXY, X0, or other anomalies), and would take many hours and considerable expense per person.

In short, this change does not aid in identification but does greatly raise the effort and expense of the passport control operation at a port of entry. Further, it greatly increases the risks to a transgender traveler should they by accident or restrictions have to transit through Doha, Dubai, or other places where a gender marker not matching one’s appearance is a criminal/religious offense.

Expand full comment
Jaimie Hileman's avatar

Republicans are telling us who they really are and we ignore them to our utmost peril.

Expand full comment
Marie Lewis (She/They/Fae)'s avatar

My current passport with a proper gender designation is about 5 years old. So hopefully it won't be revoked and this nasty policy will not be there in 5 more years...

Expand full comment
Sarah F's avatar

For those who need to re-enter the US, you should familiarize yourself with pre-clearance locations - US customs operations based in foreign countries - a few in the Caribbean, several in Canada, one in Dublin, and another someplace in the Middle East where I wouldn't be caught dead. Basically, you can go through US customs at these foreign locations, so that when you arrive in the US, your customs clearance has already taken place. It's like arriving as a domestic passenger. What makes this an attractive option is that if there is any drama, it occurs on foreign soil. The CBP operations are subject to the laws and regulations of their host countries, and anybody detained must be handed over to local authorities. So, the worst that could happen is that you get your passport confiscated.

Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_border_preclearance

Pay special attention to the Legal Restrictions section of the article.

On an additional note, if Mandami does make NYC a sanctuary city for trans people, JFK would be the ultimate safe place to land after being pre-cleared in Toronto or Dublin.

Expand full comment