US Appeals Court Rules Pentagon’s Transgender Military Ban Unlawful, Keeps Policy in Force

A divided federal appeals court panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that a Trump-era Pentagon policy barring transgender individuals from military service is likely unconstitutional, while also narrowing the scope of an injunction that protects service members.

The court upheld a 2025 ruling by Ana Reyes, who found that an executive order issued by Donald Trump excluding transgender troops from service likely violates constitutional protections, particularly equal protection principles.

However, the appellate court ruled that the preliminary injunction must be limited , meaning it applies only to active-duty transgender service members who are plaintiffs in the case , and does not extend to transgender individuals seeking to enlist in the armed forces.

The decision effectively creates a split legal outcome , allowing the government to continue restricting enlistment while temporarily protecting a narrow group of currently serving personnel from removal as litigation continues.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order asserting that gender identity conflicts with military discipline and readiness , leading to a Pentagon policy issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that presumes individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria are disqualified from military service.

The policy defines gender dysphoria as a medical condition involving distress due to a mismatch between assigned sex and gender identity , and it has been cited by officials as justification for exclusion from service.

Writing for the majority, Judge Robert Wilkins, appointed by former president Barack Obama, said the policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group” and lacked sufficient evidence to justify its sweeping exclusions.

A dissenting judge argued that courts should defer to the executive and legislative branches on military staffing and readiness decisions , warning against judicial interference in defense policy.

Recent reporting confirms the ruling is temporarily stayed , meaning the policy remains in effect while the administration seeks further review, potentially from the full appeals court or the US Supreme Court .

Legal experts note the decision reflects two simultaneous findings: that the policy is likely unconstitutional, but also that the judiciary is currently unwilling to fully block its implementation for new recruits during ongoing appeals.