Appeals Court: Pentagon Transgender Troop Ban Is Illegal
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- D.C. Circuit appeals panel ruled 2-1 on Monday that the Pentagon's policy illegally banned transgender troops, with the majority calling it "driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group."
- Judge Robert Wilkins (Obama appointee) wrote the majority opinion holding the policy was designed to exclude people based on gender identity; Judge Judith Rogers (Clinton appointee) partially dissented, saying she would also have allowed new transgender recruits to join.
- Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing the Constitution assigns military personnel decisions to Congress and the Commander in Chief — not federal judges.
- The ruling partially upholds U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes's March 2025 preliminary injunction, shielding current service members named in the lawsuit but denying relief to prospective recruits, and the panel held its decision to allow further review.
- The ban remains in effect — the Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing it last year — and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signaled an appeal in a social media post: "See you at SCOTUS."
- Trump's January 2025 executive order claimed transgender identity "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle," prompting Hegseth to issue a policy presumptively disqualifying people with gender dysphoria from service.
- A separate Washington state challenge to the same ban was ruled in favor of the plaintiffs but remains blocked by the Supreme Court.
Why it matters: The 2-1 ruling protects currently serving transgender service members named in the lawsuit from discharge but leaves new enlistees blocked from joining, and the administration's promise to take the fight to the Supreme Court means the ban's fate now turns on the high court's majority. The clean split along appointing-president lines — two Democratic appointees in the majority, one Trump appointee in dissent — frames this as an issue the justices are likely to decide along ideological lines.
