Appeals Court Rules Trump Transgender Troop Ban Illegal

A divided federal appeals panel ruled on June 1 that a Trump administration policy illegally barred transgender people from U.S. military service, while narrowing relief to those already serving, the Associated Press reported.

The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit largely upheld a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who had concluded that President Donald Trump's executive order to exclude transgender troops likely violated their constitutional rights, the AP reported. The majority held the policy was designed to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The ban remains in effect for now. The Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to begin enforcing it last year while litigation continues, and the panel put its own decision on hold to let the administration seek further review, according to the AP.

What the court held

The majority narrowed Reyes' preliminary injunction so that it would keep the military from removing current service members named in the lawsuit but would not allow new transgender recruits to join, the AP reported. Writing for the majority, Judge Robert Wilkins said the policy "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender."

According to CBS News, Wilkins wrote that the government's stated rationale based on gender dysphoria was "pretextual" and that the policy was premised "at least in part, on a non-legitimate state interest to harm the politically unpopular group of transgender persons." CBS reported the panel split 2-1 in finding the policy likely violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The JURIST legal news service reported the 50-page majority opinion called the policy "both arbitrary and based upon animus."

The dissent

Judge Justin Walker, who was nominated to the court by Trump, dissented, writing that judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops. "We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks," Walker wrote, according to the AP. "The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief."

Judge Judith Rogers, nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, joined Wilkins' majority opinion but partially dissented, writing that she would also have allowed new transgender recruits named in the lawsuit to join, the AP reported. Wilkins was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

How the policy took shape

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order asserting that the identity of transgender service members "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life" and is harmful to military readiness, the AP reported. In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from service.

CBS News reported the Defense Department issued its policy in February 2025, disqualifying people with gender dysphoria unless they obtained a waiver. CBS, citing a defense official, reported an estimated 4,200 troops had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria as of December 2024. Wilkins noted the plaintiffs had served a combined 130 years and earned more than 80 commendations, and that the administration did not contest that they had served honorably, CBS reported. The challenge tracks broader workplace-law questions about when policies cross from lawful standards into unlawful discrimination, an issue that also surfaces in wrongful-termination disputes.

Reports differ on how many plaintiffs brought the District of Columbia case. The AP and PBS NewsHour described the suit as filed by six active-duty transgender service members and others seeking to enlist, while CBS News reported it was brought by "more than a dozen" active-duty service members plus a group pursuing enlistment. The narrowed injunction protects only the active-duty plaintiffs, the AP reported.

Reaction from both sides

Hegseth signaled the administration would appeal, writing on social media, "See you at SCOTUS," the AP reported. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to the AP's request for comment.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, applauded the ruling, calling it "a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs' extraordinary courage," according to the AP. Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who argued for the plaintiffs, called the decision a "dramatic shift in the status quo," CBS News reported, saying it stopped the administration from discharging the service members. Whether such a policy can lawfully separate long-serving employees echoes questions that arise under employment agreements and termination rules in the civilian workforce.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration's policy barring transgender people from military service was illegal and likely unconstitutional. It narrowed relief to protect current service members named in the suit but allowed enlistment restrictions to remain.

Is the transgender military ban over?

No. The ban remains in effect. The Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce it last year while litigation continues, and the appeals panel put its own decision on hold so the administration can seek further review. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled an appeal to the Supreme Court.

How did the judges divide?

Judges Robert Wilkins (an Obama nominee) and Judith Rogers (a Clinton nominee) formed the majority, though Rogers partially dissented and would have let new recruits join. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, dissented, writing that decisions about military composition belong to Congress and the commander in chief.

How many plaintiffs were involved?

Reports differ. The AP and PBS NewsHour described six active-duty service members plus others seeking to enlist, while CBS News reported "more than a dozen" active-duty members plus a group pursuing enlistment. The narrowed injunction protects only the active-duty plaintiffs.

Sources

Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.