In a significant legal development, a panel of federal appellate judges has ruled against a policy that barred transgender individuals from serving in the military. This decision marks yet another hurdle for former President Donald Trump’s policy initiatives.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered a divided opinion, with the majority stating that the Trump administration’s policy aimed to exclude individuals based on their gender identity. The ruling, however, will not immediately lift the ban. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously allowed the policy to be enforced while ongoing litigation is resolved, and the appeals court has put its ruling on hold, pending further appeals. This means that while currently serving transgender troops are protected, new enlistments can still be prevented under the current policy.
This 2-1 decision by the appeals court largely supports a prior ruling from March 2025 by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who found that the exclusion of transgender individuals likely infringes on their constitutional rights. The administration’s appeal followed Reyes’ preliminary injunction, which was requested by attorneys for several active-duty transgender service members and those wishing to enlist. The appellate court decided to narrow the scope of this injunction to only benefit currently serving plaintiffs.
In parallel, another lawsuit contesting the policy in Washington state resulted in a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs, adding to the legal challenges against the ban.
Trump’s executive order issued in January 2025, asserted that the presence of transgender service members could conflict with military values and readiness. As a consequence, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implemented a policy that effectively disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a condition that involves a disconnect between one’s assigned gender and gender identity, often leading to depression and suicidal ideation.
Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority, stated that the policy seemed motivated by a desire to harm a politically marginalized group. Wilkins was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. In dissent, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, argued that the judiciary lacks the authority to challenge military decisions, asserting that such power resides with Congress and the Commander in Chief. Judge Judith Rogers, nominated by President Bill Clinton, concurred with the majority but also expressed partial dissent.
For more details on the ruling, see the official document.
