The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to clear the way for the Pentagon to discharge transgender servicemembers who remain protected from its military ban, returning the policy to the justices after they allowed broader enforcement last year.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a petition Friday asking the Court to review a June ruling in Talbott v. United States. The D.C. Circuit kept protections in place for current servicemember plaintiffs while their constitutional challenge continues, preventing the Pentagon from discharging them under the policy.
The case involves 29 plaintiffs, including active-duty servicemembers, reservists, National Guard members and a person seeking to enlist. The underlying lawsuit is scheduled for trial in January.
The filing puts a narrower part of President Donald Trump’s transgender military policy back before a Supreme Court that has already allowed the Pentagon to enforce the restrictions more broadly.
In May 2025, the justices stayed a nationwide injunction in a separate case, United States v. Shilling, allowing the policy to take effect while that lawsuit continued. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the administration’s request.
The Talbott plaintiffs remained separately protected after the D.C. Circuit ruled this June that the Pentagon could enforce its restrictions against people seeking to join the military, but not against the current servicemembers who brought the case.
Sauer called that ruling “gravely erroneous” and urged the Supreme Court to settle the constitutional dispute.
“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” Sauer wrote in the petition.
The administration argues that the Pentagon policy sets medical and military readiness standards that are entitled to substantial judicial deference. The plaintiffs contend that it discriminates based on transgender status and sex in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.
Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 directing the Defense Department to change its standards for transgender military service. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth later adopted a policy generally disqualifying people with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, related symptoms, or certain medical interventions associated with gender transition.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the policy in March 2025 after finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims. The D.C. Circuit later narrowed her injunction, allowing restrictions on prospective recruits while preserving protections for current servicemembers who sued.
The appeals court concluded that the policy, as applied to those already serving, was likely unconstitutional. Its ruling cited the government’s stated reasons for the restrictions and the record developed before the district court in finding that the policy was not sufficiently tied to its asserted military objectives.
The government is now asking the Supreme Court to review that decision before the district court reaches a final judgment. Its petition for a writ of certiorari does not itself lift the injunction protecting the servicemembers.
If the justices take the case, they could decide whether the Pentagon’s restrictions violate the Fifth Amendment and how much deference courts must give military leaders when reviewing service eligibility policies.
The administration also argues that the D.C. Circuit ruling cannot be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow enforcement of the same policy in Shilling. The Supreme Court’s order in that case addressed whether the policy could take effect while litigation continued and did not resolve its constitutionality.
Attorneys for the Talbott plaintiffs are urging the justices to leave the appeals court ruling in place. Jennifer Levi, an attorney with GLAD Law representing the servicemembers, said the plaintiffs are qualified and meeting military standards.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case this fall. The current servicemember plaintiffs remain protected from discharge under the challenged policy while the D.C. Circuit ruling remains in effect, with the underlying case scheduled for trial in January.
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... Read More »
President-elect Donald Trump has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily halt implementation of a law mandating either the sale of TikTok to an American company or a nationwide ban of the app, citing the need for his incoming administration to pursue a "political resolution." The request marks a notable... Read More »
The National Coalition for Men is requesting the Supreme Court to consider whether the male-only requirement for Selective Service registration is a violation of equal protection guaranteed under the Constitution. Currently, most United States citizens and immigrant men between the ages of 18 and 26 must register with the Selective... Read More »
On October 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a pair of issues from three cases that have the potential to change the landscape of federal anti-discrimination law. The cases, titled Altitude Express, Inc. v Zarda, Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. Harris... Read More »
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed former President Donald Trump to move forward with deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using a controversial wartime law from 1798, marking a significant legal victory for Trump's aggressive immigration policies, albeit with key limitations. In an unsigned 5-4 decision divided along ideological... Read More »
