The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to take up the transgender military ban, asking the justices to decide whether the policy violates the Constitution. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described a ruling by a federal appeals court that restricted enforcement of the policy as “gravely erroneous,” arguing that if it stands it would mark an “unprecedented intervention into military affairs” contrary to precedents that defer to the political branches on military judgments.
The administration adopted the policy last year, shortly after President Donald Trump’s second-term inauguration. An executive order directed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to implement a ban on individuals with gender dysphoria.
Transgender military ban challenged in federal court
On Feb. 26, the Department of Defense issued the policy, generally disqualifying individuals who have gender dysphoria or who have undergone medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria from serving. The department said the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints associated with the condition are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards required for military service.
A group of transgender people who either serve in the U.S. military or seek to enlist sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., asserting that the policy violates their constitutional right to equal treatment. They argued the policy is rooted in animus toward transgender people and lacks a legitimate governmental purpose.
On March 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes temporarily blocked implementation of the ban. She agreed with the challengers that the policy is “soaked in animus,” writing that its language is demeaning, its approach stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions are disconnected from fact.
The administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which entered an administrative stay to keep Reyes’ order on hold while the case proceeded.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily froze an order from a different federal judge in Washington state that had barred nationwide enforcement of the policy in a separate case. That case remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
On June 1, 2026, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld part of Reyes’ order, concluding the government could not enforce the policy against the plaintiffs who were already serving.
Judge Robert Wilkins wrote that there was direct evidence the policy was motivated by animus toward transgender people. He said the policy’s foundational premises were steeped in bias, resting on the idea that persons with a “false gender identity” are unfit for service and that those with a history of gender dysphoria lack qualities such as honesty, humility, and integrity.
Supreme Court petition centers on military authority and transgender military ban
In Friday’s petition asking the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision, Sauer said the case presents an issue of exceptional and recurring importance: the federal government’s authority to decide who may serve in the armed forces. He wrote that military leaders have determined the policy is necessary to maintain rigorous standards and deliver a ready, deployable force.
Sauer also argued that the lower court applied the wrong constitutional standard. He said rational basis review should apply because the policy classifies based on a medical condition, gender dysphoria, rather than discriminating against transgender people.
Under rational basis review, the government need only show plausible reasons for its actions, which he said include maintaining readiness, cohesion, discipline, and controlling costs. The challengers’ response to the petition is due in approximately one month.
The dispute echoes earlier litigation in which the Trump administration sought Supreme Court review of a contested federal immigration policy, including a Supreme Court border policy review sought by Trump team case that also tested the scope of executive authority. The Court’s decision on whether to hear the current challenge will determine how quickly the justices weigh in on the latest clash over military policy and transgender rights.