Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Military Ban on Transgender Individuals
Neither the majority nor the dissenting opinions offered any explanations for their stances.
TroibNews
President Donald Trump can move forward with his intention to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military, including the removal of currently serving transgender troops, as ruled by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The concise one-page order — issued despite opposition from three liberal justices — overturned a lower-court judge's decision that had put a hold on the administration’s ban, determining that the ban was likely unconstitutional and relied on misinterpretations of limited research. The Trump administration contended that the courts should generally defer to military assessments regarding readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion.
Neither the majority nor the dissenting justices elaborated on their rationale.
This order, which emerged after an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, is not a conclusive decision on the matter but will remain effective as further legal proceedings continue.
Earlier, two federal district judges had prevented the administration's ban, asserting that the proposed changes were inadequately supported and could not be justified even with substantial deference to military leaders. They also mandated that the military restore medical care for transgender service members.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., blocked the ban on March 18, but her ruling was subsequently stayed by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Contrastingly, a subsequent ruling from U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, appointed by George W. Bush in Tacoma, Washington, was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 28.
In a recent urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that federal judges were exceeding their authority by intervening in the president’s role in overseeing the armed forces. “The Constitution does not authorize courts to second-guess the approach to gender transition adopted by the 2025 policy,” Sauer remarked.
In 2019, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of allowing the first Trump administration to enforce a more restricted ban, which sought to exclude transgender individuals who had undergone gender transition and those unwilling to serve “in their biological sex.”
President Biden later rescinded that ban, permitting most transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. However, shortly after resuming office, Trump annulled Biden’s policy and issued an executive order reintroducing an even stricter ban.
Organizations challenging the ban described Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling as a "devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation's defense."
They further stated, "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice," according to a joint statement from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
The concise one-page order — issued despite opposition from three liberal justices — overturned a lower-court judge's decision that had put a hold on the administration’s ban, determining that the ban was likely unconstitutional and relied on misinterpretations of limited research. The Trump administration contended that the courts should generally defer to military assessments regarding readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion.
Neither the majority nor the dissenting justices elaborated on their rationale.
This order, which emerged after an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, is not a conclusive decision on the matter but will remain effective as further legal proceedings continue.
Earlier, two federal district judges had prevented the administration's ban, asserting that the proposed changes were inadequately supported and could not be justified even with substantial deference to military leaders. They also mandated that the military restore medical care for transgender service members.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by Joe Biden in Washington, D.C., blocked the ban on March 18, but her ruling was subsequently stayed by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Contrastingly, a subsequent ruling from U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, appointed by George W. Bush in Tacoma, Washington, was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 28.
In a recent urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that federal judges were exceeding their authority by intervening in the president’s role in overseeing the armed forces. “The Constitution does not authorize courts to second-guess the approach to gender transition adopted by the 2025 policy,” Sauer remarked.
In 2019, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of allowing the first Trump administration to enforce a more restricted ban, which sought to exclude transgender individuals who had undergone gender transition and those unwilling to serve “in their biological sex.”
President Biden later rescinded that ban, permitting most transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. However, shortly after resuming office, Trump annulled Biden’s policy and issued an executive order reintroducing an even stricter ban.
Organizations challenging the ban described Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling as a "devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation's defense."
They further stated, "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice," according to a joint statement from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal.
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
