The Supreme Court has granted a significant, albeit potentially temporary, victory to the Trump administration by lifting a lower court injunction that had blocked the implementation of the Pentagon’s transgender military ban. This action allows the Trump administration’s policies regarding transgender service members to proceed, at least for the time being, while legal challenges continue to wind their way through the courts.
The ruling, delivered on a Tuesday, does not address the fundamental legal arguments against the ban, focusing instead on the immediate need to allow the military to implement its preferred policies. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating their preference to maintain the lower court’s injunction.
The case at the heart of the matter, Shilling v. United States, directly challenges the executive order issued by then-President Donald Trump that sought to ban transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The executive order directed the Defense Department to revise its guidelines concerning medical standards for transgender individuals seeking to serve and to rescind any existing guidance that conflicted with the administration’s perception of military readiness.
The Trump administration’s primary argument in favor of the ban centered on the claim that allowing transgender individuals to serve would negatively impact military readiness. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized this point in his filing with the Supreme Court, asserting that the continued enforcement of the lower court’s injunction would force the military to adhere to a policy that it had determined, through its professional judgment, was detrimental to both military readiness and the nation’s broader interests.
Trump administration officials further argued that the policy was essential to maintaining military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and to avoid what they considered disproportionate costs associated with transgender service members.
The ban was immediately met with legal challenges. Seven transgender military members filed a lawsuit in federal court in Seattle, while a separate case was brought in Washington, D.C. In the D.C. case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes raised a variety of questions during arguments, prompting the government to request an extension to the planned implementation deadline. However, that decision was later overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Seattle case, the plaintiffs argued that the executive order was discriminatory, asserting that it unfairly targeted transgender military members, effectively barring them from service based solely on their transgender status. The plaintiffs argued that the ban declared all transgender people unfit to serve, demeaning them and falsely portraying them as incapable of an "honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle," simply because they are transgender.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issued a preliminary injunction in March, preventing the administration from identifying and removing transgender service members while the legal proceedings continued. Settle characterized the ban as a "blanket prohibition on transgender service" and stated that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, including equal protection, First Amendment, and procedural due process arguments. He wrote that the government’s arguments were unpersuasive and the legal question was not particularly close.
Judge Settle’s injunction aimed to maintain the status quo that existed prior to the executive order, allowing transgender individuals to continue serving in the military.
The administration appealed Judge Settle’s order to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking a stay of the injunction. The administration reiterated its arguments that the ban was necessary to promote military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, and to avoid disproportionate costs. However, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, composed of Judges Atsushi Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali H. Desai, denied the administration’s request for a stay. This denial was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
A Justice Department official stated that the Department had vigorously defended President Trump’s executive actions, including the "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness Executive Order," and would continue to do so.
Shilling v. United States is just one of several lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s transgender military ban. These legal challenges have unfolded against a backdrop of broader efforts by the Trump administration to reverse or dismantle policies enacted during the Biden administration, particularly those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
