US appeals court partially blocks Trump ban on transgender troops, halting discharges for now

A split decision from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has dealt a partial blow to the Trump administration’s policy barring transgender people from military service. In a 2-1 ruling, the panel found that the 2025 policy was unconstitutionally motivated by animus toward a politically unpopular group, yet it simultaneously acknowledged the Pentagon’s broad authority to set enlistment standards.

The ruling’s scope

The decision specifically prevents the expulsion of 28 active-duty plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, allowing them to remain in uniform while their case continues. However, the panel declined to block the policy in its entirety, meaning the administration can still prohibit transgender individuals from enlisting for now. The plaintiffs are expected to ask the court to extend the protection to all transgender service members at a hearing scheduled later this month.

It appears to us to be a much greater hardship to end a military career than to delay the start of one.

Constitutional reasoning

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, concluded that the policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.” He pointed to President Trump’s executive order, which labelled transgender individuals as dishonest and undisciplined, as evidence of discriminatory intent. The lower court had previously blocked the entire policy, finding it likely violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

The policy appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

Split opinions on the bench

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, filed a forceful dissent, arguing that courts lack the expertise to second-guess military personnel decisions. He maintained that the Constitution assigns such authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief. A third judge, Judith Rogers, partially concurred but believed the enlistment ban should also have been halted.

Courts have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks.

Reactions and next steps

GLAD Law attorney Jennifer Levi, representing the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as confirmation that the administration has no legitimate basis to discharge members who meet all military standards. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth signalled the government’s intent to appeal, posting on X: “See you at SCOTUS.” The case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court. A similar dispute last year saw the high court swiftly overturn an appeals decision favouring transgender troops.

We see you at the Supreme Court.

Broader context of the ban

The military policy stems from a January 2025 executive order in which Trump declared that adopting a transgender identity “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” The subsequent February 2025 Pentagon memorandum under Hegseth deemed anyone with gender dysphoria symptoms or a history of transition-related medical care as disqualified. The ban is one element of a wider administration effort to roll back recognition and accommodations for transgender Americans, including ending federal settlements for transgender students and investigating providers of transition-related care.