A federal appeals court delivered a significant legal blow to the Trump administration Monday, ruling that the Pentagon’s ban on transgender military service likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
The decision came from a three-judge panel sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which divided 2-1 against the administration’s position.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth rolled out the policy in question, and two of the three judges on the panel concluded it was built on something far more troubling than military readiness concerns.
Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins formed the majority, determining the ban likely runs counter to the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee — a foundational legal protection against government discrimination.
Wilkins put the majority’s reasoning in stark terms in his written opinion, concluding the administration’s stated justifications amounted to a cover story. The real motivation, he argued, was to target a group that had fallen out of political favor.
Wilkins went further, writing that President Trump “declared transgender people as categorically unfit for military service explicitly because of their gender identity.”
The immediate practical effect of the ruling was the preservation of a preliminary injunction, keeping the Defense Department from pushing out transgender troops currently wearing the uniform. That protection, however, applies only to the active-duty plaintiffs directly involved in this particular lawsuit.
Not every part of the ruling went against the administration. Wilkins and dissenting Judge Justin Walker found common ground on one point, agreeing the government could continue blocking transgender recruits who had not yet enlisted from joining the military.
Hegseth wasted no time responding. Within hours of the ruling dropping Monday, he took to social media with four words: “See you at SCOTUS.”
The political backgrounds of the judges involved drew immediate attention. Walker, who wrote the dissent, earned his federal appointment from President Trump in 2020. Wilkins was placed on the D.C. Circuit by President Barack Obama. Rogers received her seat from President Bill Clinton.
The origins of the controversy stretch back to the earliest days of Trump’s second term, when he signed an executive order taking aim at active-duty troops and prospective enlistees diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
The order framed the military’s demanding culture — citing “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity” — as fundamentally at odds with the “medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.”
Hegseth moved quickly after the order landed, directing the Pentagon to freeze new enlistments for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria and cut off medical procedures for transgender troops already serving.
A formal departmental policy followed in February 2025, establishing gender dysphoria as a disqualifying condition for service absent a waiver.
Legal challenges materialized fast, with cases filed in both Washington, D.C., and Tacoma, Washington.
The Supreme Court weighed in on the Tacoma litigation in May 2025, allowing the administration to keep enforcing its policy while the broader legal battle played out.
The D.C. case was filed by more than a dozen transgender active-duty service members alongside transgender individuals blocked from enlisting. Their core argument held that the Pentagon’s policy constituted unlawful sex discrimination.
Federal District Judge Ana Reyes sided with the plaintiffs in March 2025, blocking enforcement and issuing a pointed ruling that the policy stemmed from unconstitutional animus. The administration appealed immediately, successfully persuading a separate appeals panel to pause Reyes’ injunction during the review process.
Wilkins took direct aim at the policy’s sweeping scope in Monday’s opinion, writing that it “does not classify whether persons are eligible to serve in the military in a reasonable and evenhanded manner.”
His objection centered on the policy’s disqualification of anyone ever diagnosed with gender dysphoria — regardless of how long ago that diagnosis came or whether the condition remains active.
He pointed to the plaintiffs’ records: 130 combined years of military service and more than 80 commendations earned collectively. The Trump administration, Wilkins noted, never disputed that these individuals served with distinction and met the military’s standards.
The administration’s own concessions became a focal point of the opinion. Wilkins noted officials “conceded” there was “no evidence to establish that persons with gender dysphoria are not honest, humble, and full of integrity.”
The scope of the issue extends across the entire force. A defense official reported approximately 4,200 troops carried a gender dysphoria diagnosis as of December 2024.
Between January 2016 and May 2021, roughly 1,900 active-duty service members received gender-affirming care through the Defense Department, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in January 2025.
