D.C. Circuit Partly Blocks Trump Policy on Transgender Military Service

A federal appeals court partly allowed the Trump administration’s 2025 transgender military service restrictions to take effect Monday, narrowing a lower court order that had blocked the policy while a constitutional challenge continues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the government may not use the policy to remove the named transgender service members who brought the lawsuit. At the same time, the court lifted the injunction for people seeking to join the military, allowing that part of the policy to move forward while the case proceeds.

The ruling centers on Executive Order 14183, issued by President Donald Trump in January 2025, and a Pentagon guidance issued the following month by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The court referred to the guidance as the Hegseth Policy.

Under the policy, people with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria, are disqualified from military service. The guidance also restricts service by people with a history of certain transition-related medical care.

Current service members and prospective applicants sued the United States, arguing the restrictions violate equal protection rights that apply to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. They claim the guidance is not a neutral medical fitness rule, but a way to exclude transgender people from military service.

The government argues the restrictions are tied to military readiness, deployability, unit cohesion, medical standards, and the authority of military leaders to decide who may serve. Courts generally give military officials broad deference on questions involving discipline, readiness, deployment, and force structure.

Judge Robert Wilkins, writing the opinion announcing the judgment of the court, said the challengers had shown at this early stage that the policy likely violates equal protection, even though the panel divided over how far temporary relief should extend. He wrote that the record showed the restrictions went beyond disqualifying people based on a medical condition and instead appeared to target service members and applicants who express a gender identity different from the one recognized by the administration.

The court identified several parts of the directive that it found difficult to justify as ordinary medical rules. The ruling noted that the policy disqualifies people with any history of gender dysphoria, even if the diagnosis was remote, and sends affected service members through an administrative separation process generally used for misconduct rather than the disability evaluation system used for medical conditions.

Wilkins also pointed to the service records of the troops, challenging the policy. According to the ruling, the government did not contest that the currently serving challengers had served honorably and met military standards. Together, those service members had more than 130 years of military service and more than 80 commendations.

The equal protection issue turns on whether the federal government drew a lawful line based on military fitness or used medical language to target transgender people as a group. The challengers argue that the policy treats transgender people differently without a valid reason. The government says it is setting medical and operational standards for the armed forces.

Military deference is a central part of that dispute. Judges often give military leaders wide room to decide who may serve and what standards are needed for an effective force. The D.C. Circuit said that deference is broad, but not absolute, when a policy is challenged as unconstitutional.

Because the appeal involved a preliminary injunction, the panel did not decide the final merits of the lawsuit. The judges considered whether parts of the lower court’s order should remain in place while the case continues.

The court left the injunction in place for the named service members already in uniform, finding that they faced removal from established military careers and potential constitutional harm if the restrictions were enforced against them during the lawsuit. The panel also said the government had not shown how keeping those troops in service while the case proceeds would harm national security.

The court took a different view of the applicants seeking to enlist. Wilkins wrote that ordering the military to admit new service members before a final ruling raised separate concerns, especially because a later decision in the government’s favor could mean the military had been required to accept people it was legally allowed to exclude.

The divided result came from a shifting agreement among the three judges. Wilkins and Senior Judge Judith Rogers agreed that the injunction should remain in place for the named service members already serving. Wilkins and Judge Justin Walker agreed that the injunction should be vacated for the challengers seeking to enlist.

In a separate opinion, Rogers said she would have kept the injunction in place for both groups, limited to the named challengers. She said the government had not shown that the district court abused its discretion in blocking the policy as to people seeking to join the military.

Walker dissented from the part of the ruling protecting current service members. He argued that the Constitution gives the political branches, not courts, responsibility for broad military judgments about the composition of the armed forces. In his view, the court should have deferred to the military’s stated concerns about readiness and deployability.

The appeals court also narrowed the scope of the lower court’s order. Rather than allowing broader relief, the panel said the injunction should apply only to the named challengers who are currently serving.

The case returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for further proceedings.