A divided panel of federal appeal court judges upheld a Trump administration policy that banned transgender troops from military service, but limited the injunction to active‑duty personnel and those already enlisted.
The decision was issued Monday by a three‑judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. It follows a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., who concluded that President Donald Trump’s executive order likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender service members.
Reyes had granted a preliminary injunction in favor of six transgender soldiers currently serving and two additional individuals seeking to enlist. The appeals court’s majority trimmed that injunction, allowing it to apply only to those already in the service but excluding prospective enlistees, a move that leaves the ban largely intact pending future litigation.
In January 2025, Trump signed the order claiming that a transgender service member’s sexual identity conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, and that such identity is harmful to military readiness. The order faced criticism from civil‑rights groups and the military itself.
In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that automatically disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from enlistment. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition associated with distress stemming from a mismatch between assigned gender and gender identity, and it has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.
Judge Robert Wilkins, who wrote for the majority, noted that the policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.” Wilkins, nominated by former President Barack Obama, emphasized the importance of constitutional safeguards against discriminatory actions.
Judge Reyes’s decision was seen as a landmark step toward protecting transgender service members’ civil rights, and it underscores the ongoing legal debate over executive power in shaping military policy.
}
