Trump Administration Takes Transgender Military Ban Fight to Supreme Court

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold its restrictions on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, arguing that the Pentagon — not federal judges — should have broad authority to determine who is qualified to serve in the nation’s armed forces.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a petition Friday asking the justices to review a federal appeals court decision that prevented the administration from enforcing the policy against 28 transgender service members who challenged it.

Sauer called the lower court’s decision “gravely erroneous” and argued that the dispute involves a fundamental question about the federal government’s authority over military personnel. The administration maintains that courts traditionally give substantial deference to the president and Pentagon when evaluating policies involving military readiness, discipline and personnel standards.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order shortly after beginning his second term in January 2025 directing the Defense Department to establish new standards regarding transgender service members. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth subsequently implemented a policy generally disqualifying individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from military service.

The administration has defended the restrictions as necessary to maintain readiness, cohesion, discipline and consistent medical standards throughout the armed forces. Government attorneys argue that military leaders must be allowed to establish physical and medical qualifications without federal courts substituting their own judgment.

The legal battle has continued for more than a year. In June, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the policy likely violated the constitutional equal-protection rights of the 28 service members involved in the lawsuit.

The appeals court’s 2-1 decision prevented the administration from removing those particular troops while their case continues. The ruling is narrower than other challenges to the policy because it protects the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit rather than universally blocking the Pentagon’s policy.

Judge Robert Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote for the majority that the policy appeared to be arbitrary and motivated by hostility toward transgender individuals. The Trump administration strongly rejects that characterization.

Sauer argued that the Pentagon’s policy is based on the medical condition of gender dysphoria and military requirements rather than an unconstitutional desire to discriminate against transgender Americans. The government maintains that courts should therefore evaluate the restrictions under a more deferential constitutional standard.

Attorneys representing the transgender service members argue the opposite. They contend that the policy unfairly targets troops who have already demonstrated their ability to meet military standards and that the administration has failed to establish a legitimate justification for removing qualified service members.

The Supreme Court has already intervened in a separate challenge involving Trump’s transgender military policy. In May 2025, the justices allowed the administration to enforce the broader restrictions while litigation continued through the lower courts.

The latest case could go considerably further. Rather than simply deciding whether the policy can temporarily remain in effect, the administration is asking the justices to directly address whether the restrictions themselves violate the Constitution.

The dispute also revives a policy battle stretching back to Trump’s first administration. Trump initially imposed restrictions on transgender military service during his first term before former President Joe Biden reversed that policy shortly after taking office in 2021.

Trump restored the restrictions after returning to the White House, while Hegseth incorporated the policy into a broader effort to eliminate diversity and gender-related initiatives from the Pentagon and return the military’s focus to combat readiness and traditional standards.

Roughly 4,000 current service members have reportedly been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, although the immediate lawsuit before the Supreme Court concerns only the 28 individuals who brought the challenge.

The challengers are expected to respond to the administration’s petition within approximately a month. The justices could then decide whether to hear the case during the Supreme Court term beginning in October.

If the Supreme Court accepts the administration’s appeal, the resulting decision could settle one of the most significant military personnel disputes of Trump’s second term and determine how much authority future presidents have to establish eligibility standards for service in America’s armed forces.