On May 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to enforce its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. By a 6-3 vote, the Court stayed a lower-court injunction, allowing the policy to take effect while appeals continue.
The short order, issued in the case of United States v. Shilling (No. 24A1030), did not provide a detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the decision. However, it clearly indicates that the administration may commence the discharge or disqualification of transgender troops under the new rules.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the other conservative justices joined the majority, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They argued that the ban raises significant constitutional concerns and would have preferred to maintain the injunction in place until the full resolution of the case.
The dissents highlight the constitutional implications of the ban, while the majority allowed it to proceed “for now” pending the resolution of the legal proceedings.
Policy history
The debate over transgender military service has persisted for three administrations. In 2016, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that the Pentagon would lift its ban on openly transgender troops.
Carter declared that the change would take immediate effect, eliminating the discharge of transgender individuals based on their gender identity. The Obama administration set a July 1, 2017, deadline for full implementation, while Congress and some military leaders continued to examine the issue.
However, after taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump swiftly reversed course. He began by tweeting in July 2017 that transgender service would be prohibited due to “tremendous medical costs and disruption.”
The administration subsequently issued a series of directives in 2018 and 2019 that barred individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from joining the military and imposed strict requirements for those already serving as transgender.
These policies were deemed “materially indistinguishable” from an outright ban, as stated by the Pentagon. In January 2019, the Supreme Court permitted the Trump policy to take effect while litigation was ongoing. On his first day in office, Jan. 25, 2021, President Joe Biden rescinded the ban. He issued an executive order affirming that transgender Americans who meet the military’s standards “shall be able to serve openly.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin echoed this “inclusive” language, emphasizing the military’s commitment to remaining the strongest in the world and reaffirming that transgender troops could serve “openly and free from discrimination.” Following the 2024 election, President Trump returned to office and promptly reinstated the ban.
On Jan. 27, 2025, he signed a sweeping executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” This order states that expressing a “false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”
The Defense Department’s new policy, which lists “gender dysphoria” as a disqualifying medical condition and directs it to eliminate “invented” pronoun usage and enforce strict physical standards, has faced legal challenges.
Two days after the policy was implemented, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued guidance instructing the services to identify and separate troops with gender dysphoria. In response, seven openly transgender service members, including Navy Commander Emily Shilling, sued, arguing that the new policy is unconstitutional.
On March 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Reyes (D.D.C.) blocked the ban nationwide. Judge Reyes found that the order likely violates the Constitution’s prohibition on sex discrimination, stating that it “stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit” and that its rationale is unsupported by evidence. The government immediately appealed the ruling.
Legal arguments in the case
The case raises crucial constitutional questions. The plaintiffs, comprising active-duty and prospective transgender service members, argue that the ban violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee by discriminating against them based on gender identity. They cite Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Court ruled that firing someone for being transgender constitutes illegal sex discrimination.
Additionally, the service members’ lawyers point to years of Defense Department studies and four years of experience under the Biden policy, which demonstrate that transgender troops do not compromise military readiness.
They contend that the Pentagon’s previous finding that transgender service members meet the same standards and values as all troops has been disregarded by the new ban. In response, the government’s lawyers argue that the policy does not single out transgender status but merely lists gender dysphoria as a medical disqualification.
They emphasize that the military is permitted to bar recruits with various medical conditions, such as bipolar disorder and eating disorders, and that the courts should defer to military officials’ judgment on who is fit for duty. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserts that both the old and new policies adhere to “high standards” of readiness and that removing troops with gender dysphoria is a routine health-and-welfare decision, not discrimination.
However, the plaintiffs’ side counters that a 2019 Pentagon directive permitted transgender troops to serve without adverse effects, undermining any “readiness” rationale. They also criticize the Trump ban as motivated by prejudice rather than facts.
Judge Reyes points out that the administration’s argument is essentially the same as an outright transgender ban, stating that “common sense” suggests banning those with gender dysphoria is equivalent to banning transgender people. He also cites the Supreme Court’s own finding that discrimination based on transgender status constitutes sex discrimination.
The Supreme Court’s order today leaves these questions unresolved, directing the case to appellate review while the injunction is stayed.
Fighting against the ‘purge’
Transgender rights groups and their allies swiftly condemned the ruling. Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign jointly issued a statement, calling the decision a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers.
The groups criticized the Court for “temporarily sanctioning a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.” They vowed to continue fighting in court. In an Associated Press interview, Lambda Legal emphasized that the ban discriminates against individuals who have met every qualification for service and will ultimately be overturned by the courts.
Another LGBTQ+ advocacy group, SPARTA (an association of transgender veterans), praised the professionalism of transgender troops who have been serving honorably and effectively for a decade. They vowed to “fight this discriminatory policy all the way.”
A broad coalition of state attorneys general also criticized the policy. In a friend-of-the-court brief, 21 attorneys general (led by New York Attorney General Letitia James) condemned the ban as “cruelly targeting transgender Americans who have dedicated their lives to protecting our freedoms.”
They called it a “religiously-motivated crusade” that undermines equality. Civil rights organizations such as the ACLU have long been involved in the underlying litigation and signaled their intention to continue challenging the ban as unconstitutional.
While some political leaders voiced support for the ruling as an exercise of military authority, supporters of the ban, including allies of the Trump administration, argue that the decision respects the Pentagon’s judgment and congressional delegations of authority over armed forces policy.
Opponents, however, charged that the Court was allowing a “purge” of capable troops. For instance, the Los Angeles Times noted that transgender activists described the outcome as a “purge” of “highly trained” service members. (At the time of the ruling, no senior military officials spoke publicly, but former officials have expressed concerns that forcing out experienced troops could harm readiness.)
Impact on transgender members
With the stay in place, the military can now enforce the ban as originally written. This ban has a significant impact on thousands of transgender personnel and applicants. A Pentagon fact sheet revealed that approximately 4,240 active-duty service members have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and all such cases would be flagged for discharge or separation under the new rules.
Enlisted personnel currently in transition will no longer be permitted to continue their transition, and transgender individuals will no longer be eligible to enlist. Advocates express concern that highly trained officers and enlisted members, including pilots and intelligence analysts, could lose their careers due to this ban.
The lawsuit has seven plaintiffs, including service members with over 70 medals and decades of combined experience. Their attorney emphasized that banning them would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations.
Transgender troops who remain in uniform will face uncertainty and stigma, as they have voiced profound personal hurt. Navy Lt. Cmdr. Geirid Morgan, an openly transgender doctor, described the impact of the ban as “jarring” and highlighted that trans troops have been serving honorably and effectively for a decade. She emphasized that military service is a calling and a life of sacrifice for them. Many transgender Americans are currently on active duty or in reserve and now fear losing their jobs and benefits.
Prospective recruits who identify as transgender are being informed that they will not qualify to enlist. Human resources offices are struggling to interpret the order, as the Defense Department’s new instructions leave no exceptions, despite earlier policies that had granted waivers for those already serving.
The Supreme Court’s stay will remain in effect until the case is fully litigated on appeal. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has stated its intention to comply with the Court’s order and enforce the policy. The affected service members and their lawyers have vowed to continue their legal challenge, arguing that the ban violates constitutional guarantees. This ruling sets up a prolonged legal battle, but for now, the Trump administration’s restrictions on transgender troops are back in force.
