The D.C. Circuit has ruled that the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military can remain in effect while courts sort out the legal fight, a decision that leans on deference to military leadership and presidential authority.
The appeals panel was split, but the two judges in the majority found the ban “likely constitutional,” allowing enforcement to continue while lawsuits proceed. That outcome hands a win to those who argue military readiness should be guided by commanders and the commander in chief.
The decision came from a three-judge panel that reviewed challenges to the policy and weighed whether the government had a sufficient basis to restrict service by people with gender dysphoria. The judges emphasized that the question touches on core military judgments about fitness and cohesion, areas where courts often defer to military expertise.
Civil rights groups and affected service members argued that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment by singling out a protected group and denying equal protection under law. Those lawsuits produced several lower-court injunctions that temporarily blocked enforcement until higher courts could weigh in.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court permitted the ban to take effect while litigation continued, and the D.C. Circuit’s ruling follows that trajectory by finding the administration’s policy sufficiently grounded in legitimate military concerns. The appellate court’s approach signals a willingness to sustain policy decisions tied to operational readiness when supported by military judgment.
President Trump reversed a Biden-era rule that had allowed transgender-identified people to serve openly subject to the same standards as other service members. The executive order directed the Pentagon to treat transgender identity as incompatible with “military readiness and cohesion,” language that the appeals court cited when assessing the government’s rationale.
The practical effect is immediate: thousands of active-duty service members who identified under the prior policy face new uncertainty about their status and careers. The ruling does not permanently resolve their legal claims, but it does permit the policy to be enforced while courts continue to examine the constitutional issues.
Throughout recent years the military’s stance shifted several times, reflecting changes in administrations and their assessments of fitness standards. The appellate opinion noted that standards were “partially relaxed in 2016, revived in 2018, partially relaxed again in 2021, and revived again in 2025,” highlighting how policy has tracked the views of successive commanders in chief.
The 2-1 ruling, made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, upheld Hegseth and President Donald Trump’s push to bar trans men and women from the military, after a lower court placed an injunction on it in March; the Supreme Court then ruled the ban could continue in May, as it was being debated in court.
Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao on Tuesday ruled Hegseth and Trump’s decision was “likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests.”
The judges wrote that Hegseth’s argument — that service members with gender dysphoria are unfit for the military — was supported by previous military standards. Those standards have been changed a handful of times in recent years, they noted, as the commander-in-chief has switched from being a Democrat to a Republican.
“The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks,” the judges wrote. “For decades, these requirements barred service by individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition associated with clinically significant distress. This bar was partially relaxed in 2016, revived in 2018, partially relaxed again in 2021, and revived again in 2025.”
The ruling is not the final word — litigation will keep moving through the courts and the constitutional claims will be tested further. Still, this opinion marks a meaningful judicial nod toward allowing elected leaders and military commanders to set standards for service members.
Republican thinkers will see the decision as a defense of command authority and an affirmation that military policy should prioritize unit cohesion and combat readiness. Opponents will keep pressing their constitutional claims, so the legal fight over policy and personnel will continue for months or potentially years.
