A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service is likely unconstitutional, a decision that, for now, keeps those active-duty plaintiffs in uniform.
Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins formed the majority, finding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s policy targeting service members with gender dysphoria likely violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Judge Justin Walker, a 2020 Trump appointee, dissented.
The injunction that emerged from the ruling is deliberately narrow: it blocks the Pentagon from removing the active-duty plaintiffs in the D.C. case, but does not protect transgender individuals who sought to enlist under the new policy, a group the court allowed the administration to continue excluding.
Writing for the majority, Judge Wilkins delivered a pointed assessment of the administration’s motives, finding that the policy’s stated justification was a cover for something less defensible.
“The government’s stated reason for issuing the Hegseth Policy as based solely upon gender dysphoria was pretextual, and that instead, the Hegseth Policy was premised, at least in part, on a non-legitimate state interest to harm the politically unpopular group of transgender persons,” Wilkins wrote.
He added that Trump “declared transgender people as categorically unfit for military service explicitly because of their gender identity.
Wilkins also zeroed in on a structural flaw in the policy itself, that it disqualifies anyone ever diagnosed with gender dysphoria, regardless of when the diagnosis occurred or whether it currently affects them. That, he wrote, is not a reasonable or evenhanded way to assess fitness for service.
“This is not a case where we are left to speculate why the government drafted such broad, undifferentiated classifications,” Wilkins stated. “Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line — ‘who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’ — we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the Hegseth Policy.”
The judge noted that the Trump administration had conceded there was “no evidence to establish that persons with gender dysphoria are not honest, humble, and full of integrity.”
The human dimension of the case is not incidental. The plaintiffs, more than a dozen active-duty service members, have served a combined 130 years in the military and earned more than 80 commendations between them. The Trump administration did not contest that they had served honorably and satisfied military standards.
That record, Wilkins noted, fundamentally undermined the administration’s rationale.
Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, framed the ruling in terms of what was about to happen before the court intervened.
“Before today, the Trump administration was actively taking steps to discharge these courageous plaintiffs. Today’s decision stops this administration from doing so,” Minter said. “Service members were preparing to be hauled before review boards and discharged, despite years of honorable service. The court today affirmed the District Court’s careful findings that this administration’s ban on transgender military service has no legitimate basis.
Monday’s ruling did not emerge in a vacuum. The legal fight over transgender military service has been grinding through the courts since the earliest weeks of Trump’s second term.
The president signed an executive order targeting active-duty and prospective service members with gender dysphoria shortly after taking office, describing it as necessary to preserve the military’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity.” Hegseth quickly directed the Pentagon to pause new enlistments and halt medical procedures for transgender troops. A formal Pentagon policy followed in February 2025, disqualifying people with gender dysphoria from service unless they obtained a waiver.
Legal challenges materialized in Washington, D.C., and Tacoma, Washington. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction and a scathing ruling finding the policy was driven by unconstitutional animus. The administration appealed, and a separate D.C. Circuit panel agreed to pause that ruling while the merits were argued.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue enforcing the ban while litigation proceeded, a significant setback for challengers that signaled at least some justices’ openness to the government’s position.
Monday’s decision is unlikely to be the final word. Within hours of the ruling, Hegseth posted two words on social media: “See you at SCOTUS.
That message, blunt and confident, underscores that the administration intends to escalate to the Supreme Court, which has already shown a willingness to let the policy stand while the legal process plays out.
For the transgender service members at the center of the case, the ruling buys time and protection from discharge proceedings. Whether it survives the next round is another matter. As of December 2024, an estimated 4,200 troops had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Roughly 1,900 active-duty service members received gender-affirming care from the Defense Department between January 2016 and May 2021, according to a January 2025 Congressional Research Service report.
The court battle over who may serve, and on what terms, is far from over.
