A federal appeals court has dealt another legal setback to the Trump administration’s effort to bar transgender people from military service, ruling that a Pentagon policy targeting transgender troops is likely unlawful.
In a split 2-1 decision issued Monday, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the policy appears to be aimed at excluding people from military service because they are transgender. The ruling partially upholds a lower court’s decision that found the policy likely violates constitutional protections.
While the decision marks a significant win for transgender service members challenging the ban, it does not immediately restore full access to military service. The policy remains in effect after the U.S. Supreme Court previously allowed enforcement to continue while litigation moves through the courts.
What The Appeals Court Decided
The lawsuit was brought by several transgender active-duty service members, along with individuals seeking to enlist in the military. In March, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the policy, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the ban unconstitutional.
The Trump administration appealed that ruling.
Monday’s decision largely sided with the plaintiffs but narrowed the scope of protections. Under the appeals court ruling, current service members named in the lawsuit cannot be removed from military service while the case proceeds. However, transgender individuals seeking to join the military are not covered by the injunction.
The judges also paused implementation of their ruling to give the administration time to seek additional review.
Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority, concluded that the policy appears to single out transgender people because of their gender identity.
“The policy appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Wilkins wrote.
Wilkins was joined by Judge Judith Rogers in the majority. Rogers agreed with much of the opinion but argued that transgender recruits named in the lawsuit should also be allowed to enlist while the case continues.
The Executive Order Behind The Ban
The legal battle stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025. The order claimed that the gender identity of transgender service members was incompatible with military standards and readiness.
Following the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implemented a Pentagon policy that presumptively disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from military service.
Gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition that occurs when a person’s gender identity differs from the sex assigned to them at birth, sometimes causing significant distress. Medical experts have linked untreated gender dysphoria to increased risks of depression and suicidal ideation.
Critics of the policy have argued that it relies on stereotypes rather than evidence and unfairly targets qualified Americans who are already serving their country.
Plaintiffs Celebrate The Decision
LGBTQ+ legal advocates quickly praised the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, said the decision validates the commitment of the plaintiffs who challenged the policy.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Pentagon did not immediately issue a formal response following the decision. Hegseth, however, signaled that the administration intends to continue fighting the case.
In a social media post shortly after the ruling, he wrote: “See you at SCOTUS,” referencing the Supreme Court.
A Divided Court
Not all members of the panel agreed with the majority’s reasoning.
Judge Justin Walker, who dissented, argued that courts should not interfere with military personnel decisions made by elected officials and military leadership.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” Walker wrote.
The disagreement highlights the larger constitutional questions at the center of the case: how much deference courts should give military leaders and whether policies affecting transgender Americans are subject to heightened scrutiny under the law.
What Happens Next?
The ruling is unlikely to be the final word.
A separate challenge to the transgender military policy is already moving through federal courts in Washington state. Plaintiffs in that case also secured a favorable ruling before the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the ban to take effect during ongoing appeals.
With conflicting views emerging across multiple courts and the administration signaling plans to continue its legal defense, the issue appears increasingly likely to return to the Supreme Court.
For now, the latest decision offers protection for several transgender service members already in uniform while keeping broader questions about military service, equal protection and transgender rights squarely in the national spotlight.
