A U.S. appeals court has ruled that a policy under President Donald Trump to ban transgender soldiers from the military is unconstitutional.
But Monday’s ruling was divided among a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
One of the justices, Robert Wilkins, who was appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, upheld a lower court’s ruling rejecting the Trump administration’s policy regarding already enlisted members of the military.
The second judge, Judith Rogers, who was chosen by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, agreed with him, albeit in part. She felt it should be extended to those wishing to enlist.
A third judge, Justin Walker, chosen by President Trump, issued a dissenting opinion questioning the court’s ability to second-guess U.S. military policy.
Wilkins wrote for the divided majority that President Trump’s policies violate his “constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.”
Origins of President Trump’s policies
The lawsuit focused on one of President Trump’s earliest actions during his second term in office. On January 27, 2025, one week after his second inauguration, President Trump issued an executive order called “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.”
In it, he accused the US military of being steeped in “radical gender ideology.” He also said transgender people are unfit to serve because they embrace a “false ‘gender identity.'”
“A man’s assertion that he is a woman and his request that others respect that falsehood is inconsistent with the humility and selflessness required of military personnel,” Trump wrote.
This executive order became the basis for a 13-page Department of Defense memorandum issued in February 2025 under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
The statement declared that service members with “symptoms” of gender dysphoria or who have undergone hormone therapy or surgery to affirm their gender will be “disqualified from military service.”
In Monday’s ruling, Wilkins said the policy was blatantly discriminatory. He wrote that the policy “appears to be driven by a naked desire to harm a politically unpopular group: people who identify as transgender.”
“To add insult to injury, the president labeled transgender people as disgraceful, undisciplined, arrogant, and selfish liars,” Wilkins added, referring to the executive order.
He noted that the transgender plaintiffs in this case have combined for 130 years of military service and have received more than 80 awards for their service.
Wilkins said that in the face of this evidence, the Trump administration has “abandoned any argument” that “retaining these service members would compromise our national security.”
Divided opinions in the Court of Appeals
But Wilkins stopped short of fully upholding the lower court’s ruling against the policy.
Earlier, Judge Ana Reyes had issued a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order, ruling that discrimination against transgender soldiers is unconstitutional.
Wilkins agreed with Reyes that the Trump administration cannot fire people already employed in the military. But there is little harm to those who wish to join, he added.
Monday’s ruling therefore rescinds part of Reyes’ injunction that would have blocked the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people from the military enlistment process.
Mr. Rogers, a Mr. Clinton appointee, disagreed with that distinction. She pointed to testimony that excluding transgender recruits from joining the military would deprive the military of “qualified personnel who have demonstrated their ability to serve.”
Meanwhile, Walker’s dissent, which was appointed by President Trump, hinges on his argument that the court violated the separation of powers in the U.S. government.
He argued that courts should not rule on the composition of the military.
“We do not have the expertise or authority to determine whether the military can remove Plaintiff from the Corps,” Walker wrote. “The Constitution vests that power in Congress and in the Commander-in-Chief.”
reaction to decision
This split decision is unlikely to have an immediate impact on U.S. military policy.
As the legal battle continues, an appeals court has put on hold a preliminary injunction from Reyes, and last year the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Schilling also blocked an injunction against President Trump’s anti-transgender policies.
In a short, four-word social media post, Hegseth indicated that the Pentagon intends to appeal Monday’s decision.
“See you at SCOTUS,” he wrote, using the acronym for the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against bigotry and discrimination in the Trump administration.
“No one who is qualified and responds to the call to serve should be denied the opportunity because of who he or she is,” Congressman John Larson, D-Conn., said in a statement.
“Trump’s transgender military ban is discrimination, plain and simple. We will continue to fight these attacks against our military and all transgender Americans.”
