Soldiers conduct a pass in review during a change of command ceremony. (Photo: U.S. Army Spc. Brandon McNeal)
A federal appeals court panel ruled Monday that a Pentagon policy directed by the Trump Administration likely violated constitutional protections by targeting transgender Service Members, giving the administration another court setback while parts of the policy remain in place during continued litigation.
The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially upheld a lower court decision that had blocked the policy for some current Service Members. The panel said the government could not remove the transgender Service Members involved in the lawsuit while the case continues, but it allowed the military to block new transgender enlistments for now.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Defense (War) Department to revise military standards related to gender identity, gender dysphoria, and pronoun use. The order said those policies were tied to readiness, cohesion, and military effectiveness.
Secretary Pete Hegseth later issued a Pentagon policy that presumptively disqualified people with gender dysphoria from serving. The policy was challenged by transgender Service Members and people seeking to join the military, who argued it unlawfully targeted them based on gender identity.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes previously blocked the policy in March 2025, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the ban violated their constitutional rights. The appeals court agreed in part, but narrowed the protection to current Service Members named in the lawsuit rather than extending it to prospective recruits.
The appeals court said the policy appeared to be motivated by discrimination, while also recognizing the Pentagon’s authority to set enlistment standards as the lawsuit moves forward. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority that ending a military career carries a greater hardship than delaying the start of one. Judge Justin Walker dissented, arguing that courts should not decide military personnel policy.
The ban is still not fully resolved. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the policy to take effect in 2025 while legal challenges continued, and the latest appeals court decision could face further review. Hegseth has likewise signaled that theTrump Administration plans to take the case to the Supreme Court.
GLAD Law, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, said the June 1 ruling stopped the discharge of the transgender Service Members covered by the case. The group said the lawsuit was filed on equal protection grounds and originally involved six active-duty Service Members and two people seeking to enlist.
The ruling keeps the legal fight alive over how far the executive branch can go in setting military service standards and whether the government can restrict transgender Americans from serving based on gender identity or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
For now, the decision protects only the current Service Members covered by the lawsuit, while the larger question of transgender military service remains before the courts.
Author: Rikki Almanza
Rikki is a Web Content Coordinator for the American Legion, Department of California. With a deep-rooted family connection to the military, Rikki is committed to using her skills and knowledge to provide valuable assistance and resources to servicemembers and veterans.
