A divided federal appeals court panel ruled Monday that a Trump administration policy restricting transgender individuals from military service is unconstitutional, blocking the government from discharging active-duty personnel while letting enlistment restrictions stand for now.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction protecting transgender service members currently in uniform. However, the panel split on how to treat new applicants, voting to lift the injunction against the policy’s accession standards and allowing the administration to pause new transgender enlistments while the legal battle continues.
The decision stems from Nicholas Talbott, et al. v. United States of America, a high-profile challenge to Executive Order 14183, issued by President Donald Trump in January 2025. The order and its subsequent Department of Defense implementing guidelines—known as the Hegseth Policy—declared that the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints associated with gender dysphoria are incompatible with military service.
Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins, writing the lead opinion, concluded that the administration’s policy was not based on legitimate military readiness concerns but was instead driven by an intent to harm a politically unpopular group.
“The record shows that the purpose of the Hegseth Policy is to target applicants and servicemembers who express what the Administration believes is a ‘false gender identity,'” Wilkins wrote, noting that the policy went far beyond standard medical disqualifications by penalizing remote histories of gender dysphoria and past instances of social transition.
Wilkins emphasized that the government failed to provide factual evidence for its policy claims and did not dispute that the plaintiffs currently serving had done so honorably, collectively earning more than 80 commendations.
“The government abandoned all pretext of trying to craft sex-based classifications that were ‘sufficiently related’ to the legitimate government interests in ‘lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness,'” Wilkins wrote. “Those interests were dismissed as irrelevant—having the correct gender identity is all that matters.”
The court noted a sharp contrast between the current rules and the “Mattis Policy” from the first Trump administration, which allowed transgender troops to remain in the military under biological sex standards. Under the 2025 Hegseth Policy, service members facing discharge are processed through administrative separation—a mechanism typically reserved for misconduct—rather than the standard Disability Evaluation System used for other medical conditions.
Senior Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers concurred with affirming the injunction for active-duty troops but dissented from lifting the restriction on new recruits. Rogers argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion by freezing the entire policy, pointing to uncontradicted statements from former military leaders who testified that readiness and cohesion had improved under previous open-service guidelines.
“No reason is offered or evident why current service members are barred from the standard individualized evaluation to determine if they can continue to serve,” Rogers wrote, adding that certain waiver restrictions appeared “designed to target a group of disfavored people, not to address a particular medical condition.”
Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker dissented from the majority’s willingness to intervene, arguing that courts lack the authority and expertise to oversee force composition. Relying on decades of Supreme Court precedent, Walker stated that the judiciary must show total deference to the political branches on internal military matters.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks,” Walker wrote. “The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief.”
Walker defended the policy’s rationality under the highly deferential rational-basis review, arguing that a history of gender dysphoria or transition attempts could conceivably indicate a higher risk of future medical non-deployability. He noted that the military regularly disqualifies individuals with past histories of common conditions like asthma or eating disorders without judicial interference.
“The policy thus reflects a synthesis of military, medical, and operational judgments of the sort courts have consistently declined to reweigh,” Walker wrote. “One might disagree with the military’s conclusions, but it’s hard to look at the reasons and evidence the military provided in its action memo and say that the military acted ‘unthinkingly’ or ‘reflexively and not for any considered reason.'”
Because Wilkins and Rogers voted to protect current service members, that portion of the lower court’s injunction was affirmed, though narrowed strictly to the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Because Wilkins and Walker voted to lift the injunction regarding applicants, the military may enforce its enlistment restrictions against new recruits while the case returns to the U.S. District Court for final adjudication.
READ: Rep. Byron Donalds Drops ‘Shot Clock’ Plan To Blast Through Florida Bureaucracy
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
