In brief
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit upheld a March 2025 ruling, finding that the Trump administration’s ban on transgender personnel is unconstitutional. While the injunction applies only to those currently serving, it keeps the ban from taking effect for future applicants. The decision reflects a broader judicial push to protect the rights of transgender individuals in the U.S. military.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender troops from military service was unconstitutional, reinforcing the rights of transgender service members to serve without discrimination.
In a major decision issued by a three‑judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, the majority upheld a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., who concluded that the order likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender individuals. The ruling lifts a preliminary injunction that had been requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are currently active‑duty service members and two others seeking to join the armed forces.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had initially responded to the order by issuing a policy that disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from serving. Gender dysphoria, a medical condition involving distress when one's assigned gender does not align with their gender identity, is linked to depression and suicidal thoughts. Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority that this policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.” Wilkins was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama.
The court’s decision narrowly narrows the injunction to accommodate only those currently serving in the military, excluding individuals who are attempting to enlist.
The ruling is significant for the broader debate over transgender inclusion in the armed forces. While the Trump administration had argued that the ban was necessary for maintaining military readiness, the appellate court found that the executive order was arbitrary and discriminatory.
}
