The question of who may serve in a nation's armed forces has long been understood as one of the most consequential exercises of executive authority. On August 28, 2026, the Trump administration brought that question before the Supreme Court once again, filing a petition asking the justices to restore the Pentagon's power to remove transgender service members currently serving in the military.
The petition challenges a ruling handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit in June 2026. By a 2-1 majority, the panel found that the administration's policy of expelling currently serving transgender troops was driven by unconstitutional animus and blocked those removals from proceeding. The enlistment ban, which bars new recruits with gender dysphoria from joining the armed forces, was permitted to remain in place while litigation continues.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the petition that the lower court's decision was "gravely erroneous" and that "the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation's armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance."
The majority opinion was written by Judge Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. The panel concluded the policy violates plaintiffs' constitutional right to equal protection and is "both arbitrary and based upon animus."
The origins of the dispute lie in two executive acts. President Trump signed an order on January 20, 2025, directing Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to ban individuals with gender dysphoria from military service. The Department of Defence (DoD) formally issued the policy on February 26, 2025. The current ban is broader than a similar measure enacted in 2019: it carries no exceptions for service members already in uniform and disqualifies anyone who has gender dysphoria or has received medical treatment for it.
Legal challenges followed almost immediately. Transgender service members and LGBTQ+ rights groups filed suit, arguing the policy is discriminatory and violates the Fifth Amendment's due process protections. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the entire policy, finding it likely violated equal protection rights.
The administration sought emergency relief. On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted the nationwide injunction and allowed the ban to be enforced while appeals continued. The court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The court offered no explanation for its order.
The D.C. Circuit's June 2026 ruling partially restored Judge Reyes's earlier block. It prohibited the expulsion of current service members while allowing the enlistment ban to stand. The panel then stayed its own ruling to give the administration time to seek Supreme Court review.
On July 16, 2026, the Justice Department told the lower court it intended to appeal to the Supreme Court by the end of August and asked that the court hold off finalising its ruling in the meantime.
The justices have sole discretion over which cases they accept and are expected to consider the new petition during a closed-door conference when they return from their summer recess. Whether the court will take up the petition on the merits, address it as an emergency application, or decline it altogether is unknown.
A separate case, brought by seven openly transgender service members, remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. How many personnel are directly affected by the D.C. Circuit's ruling and its stay has not been publicly established.
The transgender military ban forms part of a broader administration effort to withdraw federal recognition of transgender rights. Litigation has produced conflicting rulings across multiple courts and circuits since the policy was introduced in January 2025. The Supreme Court's willingness to intervene again will determine how far the policy can now be pressed.
Comments (0)