The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that blocked the Pentagon from removing transgender service members, the latest escalation in a legal fight that could define the boundaries of presidential authority over military personnel.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the petition seeking to overturn a divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision issued in June that barred the Defense Department from enforcing its transgender troop ban against a group of active-duty plaintiffs who challenged the policy. The 2-1 ruling found the ban likely violated the service members' constitutional right to equal protection, concluding the policy was driven not by military necessity but by animus toward transgender individuals.
Sauer called the appeals court block a "gravely erroneous holding" and framed the case as a question of fundamental military authority. The Hill reported that Sauer described the military's power to determine who may serve as a "matter of exceptional importance."
"Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court's review."
The justices, currently on summer recess, will likely take up the petition during a closed-door conference after they return. Breitbart reported the Court is set to reconvene October 5.
The ruling the administration wants overturned came from a panel that split along sharp lines. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority, drew a pointed comparison between the current ban and a prior policy adopted during Trump's first term, the so-called Mattis Policy, that allowed transgender service members and those who had experienced gender dysphoria to remain in uniform.
Wilkins wrote that the contrast between the two approaches pointed in one direction:
"The sharp contrast to the Mattis Policy, adopted in the first Trump Administration, which allowed servicemembers who were transgender or who had suffered from gender dysphoria to remain in the military, appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender."
U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented. His view was blunt: "we are judges not generals." Walker's position aligns with the administration's core argument, that courts owe broad deference to the executive branch on questions of military readiness and personnel.
The D.C. Circuit ruling blocked the Pentagon from enforcing the ban only against the specific group of active-duty service members who brought the challenge. It did not extend protection to transgender individuals seeking to enlist. A trial in the case, identified in court filings as Talbott v. United States, is scheduled for January.
The ban traces back to an executive order President Trump signed shortly after returning to the White House. The order declared that transgender troops threaten military readiness and undermine unit cohesion. Trump's January 2025 directive cited readiness, cohesion, lethality, uniformity, and integrity as justifications for ending transgender service.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to carry out the order. In a memo signed in February 2025, Hegseth stated that transgender service members would be removed within 60 days unless they received a waiver demonstrating their support of "warfighting capabilities." The administration has not publicly disclosed how many waivers, if any, have been granted under that standard.
Many transgender service members have voluntarily left the military since the ban took effect. The exact number remains unclear. The administration's push to enforce the policy has also drawn a separate legal challenge, a lawsuit filed in February on behalf of seven openly transgender service members, another transgender person seeking to enlist, and an advocacy group, now pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The administration's willingness to press its case at the highest level mirrors a broader pattern. Trump has repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to defend executive authority, from landmark rulings on presidential power to fire agency heads to disputes over construction at the White House itself.
This is not the first time the transgender military ban has reached the justices. In May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to temporarily move forward with the policy by lifting a nationwide injunction in a separate case. The Court's three liberal justices dissented from that emergency-docket order.
That earlier ruling gave the Pentagon a green light to begin identifying and removing transgender troops while litigation continued. AP News reported the decision impacted thousands of service members, including highly decorated veterans. Among the plaintiffs in related litigation is Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who has nearly 20 years of service and flew 60 combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Court has not yet ruled on the underlying constitutional question: whether the ban violates the equal protection rights of transgender service members. That is precisely what the administration now wants the justices to decide, and to decide in its favor.
The Trump administration has taken a number of high-profile fights to the Supreme Court in recent months, including a challenge to mail-in voting rules ahead of the midterm elections.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court on Friday to reject the administration's petition. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, framed the request as premature and unwarranted:
"The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to rush in and bless the expulsion of proven, decorated soldiers before a single court has issued a final judgment. There is no circuit split, no emergency, and no merit, only a policy that multiple courts have now found was driven by prejudice rather than military need."
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, echoed that position. "We are confident the Supreme Court will affirm that the Trump administration cannot base policies on hostility toward a group of people," Levi said.
Senate Democrats have also criticized the executive order, arguing the commander in chief was violating service members' civil rights and weakening national security. The administration rejects that framing entirely.
A separate D.C. Circuit ruling earlier in the litigation had temporarily allowed the ban to proceed, with the majority stating that the lower court had "afforded insufficient deference" to Hegseth's judgment on military readiness. Judge Patricia Millett Pillard dissented from that decision, writing that the government provided "no evidence that they based their new policy on any assessment of costs, benefits, or any other factor legitimately bearing on military necessity." Fox News reported on that ruling at the time.
Hegseth has made the transgender ban a centerpiece of his broader effort to reshape Pentagon culture. Speaking this week in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Hegseth declared the Defense Department is focused on restoring "warrior ethos" and eliminating what he called identity-driven personnel policies.
"No more DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion]. It means colorblind, gender neutral, merit-based, back to basics across the board no matter if you're carrying a rifle or you're working on the plant floor."
Earlier this month, Hegseth used a slur during a speech at the Iowa State Fair when discussing transgender troops. The specific word was not identified in reporting, but the incident drew attention as the legal fight intensified.
The administration's legal strategy has been aggressive and consistent. Trump's Justice Department has pursued multiple cases to the Supreme Court simultaneously, including the E. Jean Carroll defamation dispute, signaling a willingness to test the boundaries of executive power across a range of issues.
The question now is whether the justices will take the case before the January trial, or let the lower courts finish their work first. Three federal judges have already ruled against the ban at various stages of litigation. The administration argues that conflicting rulings and the constitutional stakes demand Supreme Court intervention now. Opponents say there is no circuit split and no reason to rush.
The administration has also fought to defend its authority in other venues, including a Supreme Court appeal over White House construction after the D.C. Circuit demanded congressional approval.
If the commander in chief cannot decide who serves in the armed forces without a federal judge's permission, the question is not about transgender policy, it is about whether civilian control of the military still means anything at all.
