The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on its ban on transgender military service, arguing that lower courts improperly interfered with the Pentagon’s authority to decide who is eligible to serve.
In a petition filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to review a June ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that prevented the government from enforcing the policy against transgender service members involved in the lawsuit.
Sauer called the appeals court ruling “gravely erroneous” and argued that decisions about military qualifications deserve substantial judicial deference.
“The authority of the federal government to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces” is an issue of “exceptional and recurring importance,” Sauer wrote.
The dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump shortly after beginning his second term. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth subsequently issued a policy in February 2025 generally disqualifying people with gender dysphoria, or those who have received certain gender-affirming medical treatments, from military service.
Lower Courts Saw Evidence of Animus
Transgender service members challenged the policy in federal court, arguing that it violates their constitutional right to equal protection.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes temporarily blocked the policy in March 2025, describing it as “soaked in animus” toward transgender people.
The D.C. Circuit later upheld protections for service members participating in the lawsuit. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in the June 2026 decision that there was “direct evidence” the policy was motivated by animosity toward transgender people.
Wilkins concluded that the policy’s underlying premises suggested transgender people were inherently unfit for military service rather than establishing individualized standards based on a service member’s actual ability to perform their duties.
The administration disputes that characterization.
Sauer argues that the policy is based on the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria rather than transgender status itself. The government says courts should therefore apply the more deferential “rational basis” standard when reviewing the policy.
The administration cites military readiness, unit cohesion, discipline, and costs as legitimate reasons for the restrictions.
Back Before the Supreme Court
This is not the first time the current transgender military policy has reached the Supreme Court.
In May 2025, the justices allowed the administration to temporarily enforce the ban nationwide while a separate challenge originating in Washington state moved through the courts.
The current case, however, could bring the underlying constitutional question more directly before the justices.
Attorneys representing the transgender service members argue there is no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene before the case receives a full trial. That trial is currently scheduled for January 2027.
If the justices accept the administration’s appeal, the case could ultimately determine whether the Constitution permits the federal government to categorically exclude transgender Americans from military service, turning a fight over individual careers into a major Supreme Court test of transgender equality under federal law.
