A federal appeals court has ruled against policy initiated by former President Donald Trump that aimed to expel transgender individuals from the military,deeming it unconstitutional. decision, announced on Monday,was not unanimous among the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Judge Robert Wilkins,appointed by former President Barack Obama,led the majority opinion,which rejected the Trump administration's policy regarding service members already in the military. He stated that policy infringes on the "constitutional right to equal protection of the law." Judge Judith Rogers,nominated by former President Bill Clinton,concurred with Wilkins but argued that the ruling should extend to those wishing to enlist as well.
In contrast,Judge Justin Walker,a Trump appointee, dissented, questioning the court's authority to intervene in military policy. He contended that such decisions should rest with Congress and the Commander in Chief,not the judiciary.
The origins of the controversial policy trace back to January 27,2025, shortly after Trump’s second inauguration. He issued an executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which criticized the military for being influenced by what he termed “radical gender ideology.” In order, Trump labeled transgender individuals as unfit for service,asserting that their identities were inconsistent with values expected of service members.
This executive order led to a Pentagon memorandum in February 2025, under then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,which disqualified any service member exhibiting symptoms of gender dysphoria or who had undergone hormone therapy or surgery to affirm their gender. Wilkins condemned this policy as overtly discriminatory,suggesting it was designed to target a politically marginalized group.
“The policy appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Wilkins wrote.
He emphasized that the plaintiffs in the case collectively had over 130 years of military service and received more than 80 commendations, arguing that the administration had failed to demonstrate that retaining these service members would jeopardize national security.
While Wilkins agreed with a previous ruling by Judge Ana Reyes, who issued a temporary injunction against the policy,he limited scope of his decision. The court upheld Reyes's ruling that the Trump administration could not dismiss current service members but struck down her injunction regarding the enlistment of transgender individuals.
Rogers expressed her disagreement with this distinction, citing evidence that barring transgender recruits would deprive the military of qualified personnel . Walker's dissent echoed concerns about judicial overreach, asserting that the court lacked the expertise to dictate military composition.
The split ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact on military policy. The appeals court has temporarily stayed Reyes's injunction while the legal battle continues. Last year,the U.S . Supreme Court also halted injunction against Trump's anti-transgender policy in the case United States v. Shilling.
In response to the ruling, Hegseth indicated on social media that the Pentagon plans to appeal,stating, “See you at SCOTUS.” Meanwhile, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and some Democratic lawmakers celebrated the decision as a step against discrimination. U.S. Representative John Larson of Connecticut remarked that no qualified individual should be denied the opportunity to serve based on their identity,labeling Trump’s military ban as clear discrimination.
