Supreme Court Allows Military Transgender Ban
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to implement a Department of Defense policy banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, lifting a federal judge’s nationwide injunction. The unsigned order, issued without explanation, permits the policy to take effect as litigation continues in the 9th Circuit and potentially returns to the Supreme Court. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s liberal appointees, dissented, indicating they would have denied the government’s request, though they provided no reasoning.
Background and Policy Origins
In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order allowing transgender troops to serve openly, reversing restrictions from Trump’s first term. On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order and directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to enforce a new policy. Issued on February 26, 2025, the Department of Defense policy disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria—defined as psychological distress from a mismatch between one’s assigned sex at birth and gender identity—or those who have undergone medical treatments for gender dysphoria, citing incompatibility with military standards.
Legal Challenge
The policy faced immediate opposition from seven transgender service members, one prospective recruit, and a nonprofit representing transgender troops. The lead plaintiff, Commander Emily Shilling, a naval aviator with nearly 20 years of service, has flown over 60 combat missions and served as a test pilot, with the Navy investing over $20 million in her training. The seven service members collectively have over 100 years of service and more than 70 medals. They argued the policy violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee, among other protections.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, appointed by George W. Bush, agreed, calling the policy a “de facto blanket prohibition on transgender service” and issuing a nationwide injunction. When the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause Settle’s order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on April 24, 2025. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the injunction undermined the executive branch’s authority to determine military eligibility, citing a 2019 Supreme Court decision allowing a similar Trump-era policy. Sauer emphasized that an expert panel from Trump’s first term found transgender service “contrary to military effectiveness and lethality.”
Plaintiffs’ Response
On April 27, 2025, the transgender service members urged the Supreme Court to maintain Settle’s injunction, warning that lifting it would “upend the status quo by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers.” They argued that such discharges would end distinguished careers, disrupt military units, and harm readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, while also wasting public resources. The plaintiffs rejected the government’s claim that the ban targets only gender dysphoria, not transgender individuals, calling it “folly.” They noted that the policy requires service members to serve according to their birth sex and bars those who have attempted to transition, with Hegseth and the Department of Defense explicitly referring to it as a transgender ban.
The plaintiffs further distinguished the 2025 policy from the 2019 version upheld by the Supreme Court, which was narrower, allowed transitioned service members to remain, and lacked the “animus-laden language” of the current policy. They highlighted that transgender troops have served openly since 2021 without negative impacts, refuting predictions of reduced military readiness. The plaintiffs accused the 2025 policy of disparaging transgender individuals as “inherently untruthful, undisciplined, dishonorable, selfish, arrogant, and incapable of meeting the rigorous standards of military service.”
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision to pause Settle’s injunction allows the ban to proceed, potentially affecting thousands of transgender service members. The Trump administration will now respond to the plaintiffs’ April 27 brief, after which the court could issue further rulings. The case underscores ongoing tensions over transgender rights, military policy, and executive authority, with significant implications for service members like Shilling and the broader armed forces.
What’s Next?
As the Trump Administration makes arguments based on national security and military readiness, the Plaintiff’s argue for their individual rights to be treated equally. Currently, the Supreme Court has another case pending decision regarding classification of Transgender as a protected class in U.S. v. Skrmetti. If this case is ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs there, it is likely that Commander Emily Shilling and the other Plaintiffs here will receive relief, but the implication of national security issues may lead to the Supreme Court engaging in analysis of empirical data on transgender military effectiveness.
Why the Fodera Law Firm?
The attorneys at the Fodera Law Firm can assist you if you have had your rights violated. We can explain your rights and provide legal advice to guide you through your quest for justice. The Fodera Law Firm represents private sector clients in the following religion discrimination-related matters:
EEOC Charges of Discrimination
DC Office of Human Rights or Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination complaints, conciliation, and hearings
State lawsuits
Federal lawsuits
Mediation and Arbitration
Settlement negotiations
See our contact information below or click the Book a Consultation button above to speak with one of our attorneys. The Fodera Law Firm offers strategic and results-driven legal services to private sector clients in Washington, DC & Massachusetts.
