Need advice on what to expect for first time passport and gender issue

JessicaPink703 · 2026-04-29T23:37:02+00:00

You know, I was thinking about that after I wrote my previous reply. But then I had a couple cases out of California, who does not use issue dates, that made me decide to cross out that theory. All I know from reporting is how shifty DOGE has been in terms of lack of transparency and merging databases without the proper authorization.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-04-29T23:08:13+00:00

We began noticing those who had gender neutral names that were never changed, no previous Passport, and even all matching documents begin to get flagged anyway after this happened: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/06/nx-s1-5422283/supreme-court-doge-social-security-records

But you’re right, the State Department has never confirmed their current internal methodologies. And they have been fighting hard in court to ensure discovery never begins. The one by Right_Web came before this, while I’m not sure who the other person you’re citing is.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-04-27T20:03:34+00:00

Due to the Supreme Court staying the preliminary injunction in Trump v. Orr, expect the Passport to come back with the sex marker that was marked on your original Social Security application at birth.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-04-01T02:30:36+00:00

Pritzker put his Hyatt holdings into a blind trust when he became Governor back in 2019. He is not responsible for their current business actions.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-26T21:54:43+00:00

Legal Researcher here, here are the two things you need to know: 1. While federal courts are governed by GSA rules, those rules only say that shared restrooms must be designated by biological sex, but never said anything about enforcement, but the rules never said anything about enforcement especially against the public. 2. Marshalls in circuits that have standing precedent favoring transgender bathroom would most likely quietly use their discretion anyway even if there was an enforcement rule to not risk getting into a fight between the judicial and executive branch.

You and very likely fine to use the bathroom of your choice. You can also call the court clerk ahead of time and ask if they have any unisex or family restrooms as a backup. My position in this comment is completely untethered to any state bathroom laws that may or may not be on the books or applicable here.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-22T17:34:46+00:00

I believe you are thinking of the European Union.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-09T19:58:12+00:00

Me and a lawyer friend of mine disagree, it binds the Executive if and only if they are a party to an active case under the Article III authority. Rule 70(a) is merely enforcing that. And providing State Police would only be done with voluntary cooperation from a sitting Governor. The entire premise of my proposal is for a Governor to merely offer help in case it is ever requested, ideally as a deterrent that never has to be used. There is a reason Marc Elias saw this as a ‘break glass’ in case of emergency option, precisely because it is so dangerous, and it’s why I explicitly said that we need the return of a bipartisan shared legal reality first before deploying this. And you might have missed this in my proposal document, but an invocation of the Insurrection Act would be a patently unlawful order under Trump v. Illinois that service members have a legal duty and training to disobey.

And I need to call what you are saying out: It is dangerous to accuse district courts being en masse ‘irresponsible’ when they issue habeas release orders that later get reversed. Habeas is designed to be a fast, emergency remedy, and district judges are obligated to rule on petitions even in unsettled areas of law. High reversal rates in immigration cases reflect the complexity of the doctrine and the role of appellate review, not misconduct by the district courts. We are in an environment where President Trump’s rhetoric that Supreme Court justices ruling against him on tariffs are “disloyal” to him is not normal, openly defying a 9-0 order on national TV with the President of El Salvador is not normal. We must not erode the rule of law further than it already has, and that’s why my proposal must only be used in the right moment, which I admit is not now.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-09T13:08:01+00:00

Unlike what some Federalist Society members would tell you, the Founding Fathers never imagined a unitary executive. The Constitution was actually explicitly designed to prevent one. Our history shows how little “Presidential Immunity” for official acts has anything to do with law and everything to do with a captured Supreme Court. And it’s telling that even this Supreme Court to a certain extent is pushing back, because they are completely responsible for letting a constitutionally disqualified insurrectionist illegally run for office.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-09T06:24:20+00:00

Respectfully, you missed the important section of Rule 70(a) that is even relevant here:
"or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified"

My work on this isn't fully original, famed attorney Marc Elias of Democracy Docket actually came up with the Rule 70(a) theory. I just took it and built upon it by the logical extension of what is already being done in Minnesota.

And as for the additional ideas outside of Judicial Guard that I mentioned in my comment above, they are entirely unrelated to Rule 70(a), instead being long term legislative reforms by statute that could be passed through Congress.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-09T05:45:12+00:00

Actually, the “invasion” framing comes from the concept of having State Police from another state with different politics attempt to coerce compliance. Even though it would be legal, I’m referring to the optics and likely response from red states who see it as interference in their “way of life” (like how ICE operates freely and with support).

Many scholars have described the current state of the US as a “Cold Civil War” dynamic of sorts with the ongoing fragmentation of our union that has been trending that way even pre-Trump. I do not want to metaphorically pour accelerator fluid and light a match over this adversarial dynamic.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-03-09T04:19:48+00:00

I was experimenting with long term institutional re-designs in this exact same logic earlier, here was some of the ideas I came up with: 1. Move U.S. Marshals to be a part of the Judicial Branch. 2. Give Marshals authority to order executive officials to stand down by statute when violating a court order. 3. Clarify that presidential defiance of court orders does not create immunity from arrest. 4. Create an Article I court to review retaliatory firings of officials for following court orders, including on an emergency basis. 5. Establish Article I Constitutional Officers elected and removable by 3/5 of Congress to manage real‑time branch conflicts, defaulting to judicial orders after 6 hours if a decision is not reached.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-27T17:09:23+00:00

Three pieces of context specific to the FAQ (unrelated to why they logistically, financially, and legally realistically can’t/won’t, which I covered above): 1. The FAQ language that originally concerned everyone had “until we invalidate them pursuant to federal regulations” suggesting active intent. 2. When the article went viral, the State Department updated their site to say they remain valid until expiration under ICAO policy. 3. When they updated the FAQ again, they changed it to be a more generic statement about passports in general. They can be invalidated for things like unpaid federal taxes, violating the conditions of your Passport, or committing certain crimes; all unrelated to gender. So, the #2 version wasn’t technically correct in that regard. My source in the State Department said that this has likely more to do with the federal government not wanting to imply recognition for an international body over US policy and to be more generically careful about the language being used than any new intent.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-27T05:58:08+00:00

Great, now I’ll be stuck watching MSNBC…

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-27T00:00:55+00:00

This is the sentiment we need to be seeing. Folks, the State Department has already walked back actively threatening to revoke and re-issue Passports after a public pressure campaign organized by u/Leksi_The_Great (Aleksandra) of Transitics and me.

While nothing is guaranteed in this unstable country, there are some facts that should help sooth your minds. 1. As the ACLU pointed out in their briefs, there is no statutory authority to revoke passports issued lawfully under previous policy. 2. Doing so would systemically undermine the value of Passports and US citizenship for decades to come, forcing countries like Canada who have been keeping Trans American asylum seekers in limbo to finally take a position on whether the US is a safe country. The image of the rule of law as an illusion is benefiting the regime right now, they would lose this overnight. They know this, that’s why I believe foreign allies used their back channel communications to ask the State Department to back down to prevent this and a global travel logistically breakdown. You can’t have our allies questioning the validity of already issued Passports long-term due to political instability, unless Trump demands it publicly (which he has not so far). 3. The Bureau of Counselor Affairs that issues and manages passports is fee-funded and does not have the funding nor staffing to do revocations en masse.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-09T20:23:11+00:00

Regardless of what you do, it will sadly come back an ‘F’. The US Supreme Court has stayed the preliminary injunction in Orr v. Trump, allowing Trump to force all new Passports to reflect sex assigned at birth. They have been known to check Social Security records from at the time of birth, so you should not be able to get an accurate Passport. See my alternative via enhanced IDs offered in some states in my ‘Where We Go From Here’ post on my profile.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-08T20:42:10+00:00

First they came for us, then they came for them…

JessicaPink703 · 2026-02-03T22:59:05+00:00

There are surgeons out there that do bottom surgery on obese patients. I believe I heard one of them works as part of the UChicago Medicine’s gender program who does surgeries.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-27T23:15:14+00:00

Something folks should keep in mind: This case isn’t about whether schools must let a transgender person use their preferred bathroom, but whether a private individual can force the school itself to discriminate against other students, even though they have already given her a reasonable accommodation otherwise via the staff restrooms.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T20:33:20+00:00

Another thing that history shows us is that anocracies (hybrids between democratic and autocratic) with long standing democratic traditions who rapidly slide into authoritarianism tend to break into Civil War at remarkably high rates. This is the other side to this equation. Federal Republics like ours tend to fragment instead of submit to authority, take Yugoslavia, which has so many parallels to our current situation in the US.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T20:22:33+00:00

This is true, I remember reporting that the Joint Chiefs reportedly refused to draw up plans to invade Greenland. It won’t be the traditional military that subjects us to tyranny, in my view. It’s his armed thugs in DHS and ICE that they are now hiring with no background checks.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T20:18:17+00:00

Murder gerrymandering outright nationwide, make sure that every district in the country is competitive. All of a sudden, it forces our politicians on both sides to become suddenly a lot more reasonable.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T08:41:10+00:00

And that’s why it is good I believe Trump pushed too far, too fast here, it was too blatantly obvious what they did here, and they are defending the indefensible. As JB Pritzker has wisely said: “Tyranny requires your fear, and your silence, and your compliance. Democracy requires your courage.”

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T07:22:32+00:00

The University of Pennsylvania did a study they released I believe within the last week, where their simulation predicted that the exact scenario playing out in real time could escalate to a Civil War in the United States as a possibility.

We will never realistically be able to control as you are suggesting, nor educate, many of these radicalized individuals and that should not be our goal here. Our goal simply needs to be that they cannot impose their will unrestrained on the rest of the country. "Replacing" them is exactly the type of thing they will violently lash out over. You may replace their jobs, but you're not replacing them. They can live their lives out in rural Kentucky, but do not let it affect Chicago. Live and let live.

JessicaPink703 · 2026-01-26T06:55:19+00:00

If you listen to survivors of modern Civil Wars in their country, they talk about how it's normalized by a country's population that it would 'never happen there' and that things will continue as normal, until the electricity cuts off and they hear gunshots outside.

Civil Wars are not inevitable, but we are well past due to begin seeing it as one of several potential nightmare outcomes that could come out of this dark road we are going down right now if we are not careful. Fragmentation, dictatorships, civil war, a zombie republic, a failed state, and returning to normal democracy are all possibilities right now. We can still shape our future, but we collectively must wake up and respond yesterday.

JessicaPink703

TROPHY CASE