Appeals court says Trump administration's transgender military ban unconstitutional

WASHINGTON: A divided federal appeals court on Monday, June 1, ruled that the Trump administration’s policy restricting transgender military service is likely unconstitutional, delivering a significant setback to the Pentagon’s efforts to remove transgender troops from the armed forces.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the policy introduced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was likely motivated, at least in part, by unlawful discrimination against transgender individuals.

The ruling upheld a lower court injunction protecting transgender service members who are already serving in the military.

Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins formed the majority, concluding that the policy likely violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees. Judge Justin Walker dissented.

Injunction remains for active-duty personnel

The court’s decision leaves intact a preliminary injunction that prevents the Defense Department from removing transgender active-duty personnel who are plaintiffs in the case.

However, the panel also allowed the administration to continue enforcing restrictions on transgender individuals seeking to enlist in the military while litigation continues.

Writing for the majority, Judge Wilkins said the government’s justification that the policy was based solely on concerns surrounding gender dysphoria appeared to be a pretext. He argued that the policy was instead influenced by an improper desire to target a politically unpopular group.

Wilkins pointed to statements made by President Donald Trump and administration officials, saying the evidence suggested transgender individuals were being deemed unfit for service because of their gender identity rather than any demonstrated inability to meet military standards.

Policy originated from executive order

The legal dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Trump early in his second term. The order asserted that military readiness, cohesion, and effectiveness were incompatible with the medical and psychological considerations associated with gender dysphoria.

Following the order, Hegseth directed the Pentagon to suspend new enlistments by individuals with a history of gender dysphoria and halt certain medical treatments for transgender service members.

A February 2025 Pentagon policy formally disqualified most individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from military service unless they received a waiver.

Plaintiffs cite record of service

The lawsuit was brought by more than a dozen transgender active-duty personnel and several prospective recruits. They argued that the policy discriminated against them based on sex and transgender status.

Wilkins noted that the plaintiffs collectively represented more than 130 years of military service and had earned over 80 commendations. The government, he said, did not dispute their records of honorable service or their ability to meet military requirements.

The judge also highlighted what he described as the administration’s failure to provide evidence that individuals with gender dysphoria lacked the honesty, integrity, or professionalism required for military service.

The ruling marked the latest chapter in a series of legal challenges to the administration’s transgender military policy.

While the Supreme Court previously allowed the Pentagon to continue enforcing portions of the policy during ongoing litigation, Monday’s decision signaled significant judicial skepticism about its constitutional validity.

According to Defense Department figures, approximately 4,200 service members had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by December 2024.

Congressional research also found that about 1,900 active-duty personnel received gender-affirming care through the military health system between 2016 and 2021.

The case is expected to continue through the federal courts, with broader questions about transgender military service likely to face further appellate and potentially Supreme Court review.