Supreme Court allows Trump admin to implement trans military ban
The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing a ban on transgender military service while legal challenges continue in lower courts. In a brief, unsigned order issued May 6, the justices lifted a nationwide injunction blocking the policy.
Unbiased. Straight Facts.TM
The updated policy bans most transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, disqualifying those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or a transition history.
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented but did not publish their reasoning.
The ruling permits enforcement of a policy that generally disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria or those who have undergone gender-affirming medical care from serving in the armed forces. It marks a significant shift from the previous administration’s stance, which had allowed transgender personnel to serve openly.
What is the scope of the new policy?
The ban stems from President Donald Trump’s executive order on the first day of his second term. It revoked a Biden-era order that permitted open service by transgender individuals and directed the Department of Defense to implement new restrictions. According to Pentagon officials, around 4,200 active-duty service members identify as transgender, though advocacy groups estimate the number could be higher.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the move on social media, arguing that transgender identity is incompatible with the military’s standards for discipline and cohesion. In public comments and social media posts, Hegseth dismissed the inclusion of transgender troops as harmful to military readiness.
The Defense Department said the new policy enforces standards rooted in maintaining a “truthful and honorable” military lifestyle. It has not specified how it will apply the rules to current service members already serving under the previous policy.
Who is challenging the ban in court?
The policy is being challenged in multiple courts. One case, brought by seven transgender service members and a legal advocacy group, remains pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs in that case argue the ban violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees and is rooted in bias rather than military necessity.
A Navy commander and lead plaintiff, Emily Shilling, has served for 19 years and completed over 60 combat missions. Her attorneys claimed the Navy invested $20 million in her training. In March, a federal judge in Washington state issued an injunction blocking the ban, citing a lack of evidence that transgender troops harmed military performance or morale. A second judge in Washington, D.C., issued a similar ruling.
Government lawyers argued that military decision-making deserves broad judicial deference and that the policy is necessary to maintain combat effectiveness. The administration appealed, and the Supreme Court granted its emergency request to stay the lower court rulings.
How does this policy differ from the earlier Trump-era ban?
While the Trump administration previously imposed a ban on transgender troops in 2017, the current policy goes further. Plaintiffs said it eliminates carve-outs that previously allowed transgender individuals who had already transitioned to continue serving. The current version also includes more sweeping language, characterizing transgender identity as incompatible with military values.
Lawyers representing the challengers said the updated policy reflects a heightened level of animus, pointing to official language describing transgender people as “dishonest,” “arrogant” or “incapable” of meeting military standards.
The administration claimed the new policy mirrors the version previously upheld by the Court in 2019. However, the plaintiffs argued that key differences, including broader disqualification criteria and harsher rhetoric, make this version more discriminatory.
What’s next in the legal battle?
The Supreme Court’s order allows the ban to be enforced while litigation continues, but it is not a final ruling on the policy’s constitutionality. The Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Courts are expected to issue decisions in the coming months that could shape the future of the case.
Meanwhile, civil rights organizations, including Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, have condemned the decision as a setback for equality and military inclusion. They argue the policy undermines national defense by forcing out capable and experienced personnel solely based on gender identity.
As the legal challenges proceed, the status of thousands of transgender service members remains uncertain.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
