lawrota.com

The Return of the Ban? Trump Asks Supreme Court to Reinstate Transgender Military Restrictions

In a fresh legal clash that could redefine the limits of executive authority and LGBTQ+ rights in military service, the Trump administration has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to greenlight a controversial 2025 Pentagon policy banning most transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. This legal maneuver could reverse protections restored under President Biden and set a pivotal precedent on how far courts can go in reviewing military decisions.

The Legal Backdrop: From Repeal to Reinstatement

At the center of this unfolding case is a new policy issued under President Trump’s second term. In January 2025, Trump revoked President Biden’s earlier executive order that had allowed transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military. Days later, the administration directed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to enforce a new Department of Defense policy barring most individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria—or who have undergone medical treatments related to transitioning—from military service.

The administration argues that the ban is not based on gender identity but on a diagnosable medical condition, thus placing it under rational basis review, the lowest constitutional scrutiny. By that standard, the government only needs to show that the policy is “rationally related” to a legitimate governmental interest—in this case, military readiness, cost management, and unit cohesion.

A Challenge from the Frontlines

Challenging the policy in federal court are seven transgender individuals currently serving in the U.S. military, along with one aspiring service member. Their lead plaintiff, Commander Emily Shilling, is a decorated naval aviator who has completed over 60 combat missions in a distinguished 19-year career. She transitioned in 2021 and asserts that the Navy has invested over $20 million in her training.

Their claim? The policy is a de facto blanket ban that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle agreed, issuing a nationwide injunction that temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy. Settle described the Department of Defense’s new rule as “functionally identical” to the one previously struck down and reinstated in earlier litigation.

Trump’s Urgent Appeal to SCOTUS

Following the district court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to lift the injunction while the appeal was pending. That prompted the Trump administration to escalate the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

In a fast-moving legal twist, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to stay Settle’s nationwide injunction, calling it a “serious judicial overreach.” Sauer stressed that the lower court had wrongly usurped the executive branch’s constitutionally sanctioned authority to determine military personnel policies. He also argued that previous deference shown by the Supreme Court to military judgments should apply once again—especially given the “expert panel” conclusions that found transgender service could negatively impact “military effectiveness and lethality.”

Sauer also argued that the injunction’s nationwide scope exceeded judicial authority, reviving the debate around universal injunctions—a tool increasingly used by federal courts to block government actions across the board. The Trump team urged the Court, at minimum, to limit the injunction to the eight plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.

Constitutional Tests & Precedents in Play

The Trump administration frames the case as one of deference to military discretion, not discrimination. By categorizing the policy as medically focused rather than identity-driven, they hope to shield it from heightened judicial scrutiny. But critics argue this distinction is cosmetic and obscures the real impact: an effective exclusion of transgender individuals based on their identity and need for gender-affirming medical care.

Notably, the Supreme Court previously allowed a similar policy from Trump’s first term to go into effect in 2019 while litigation was ongoing—a precedent Sauer heavily leaned on in his appeal.

Key Legal Questions Ahead:

1. Does the policy violate the Equal Protection Clause?
2. Should courts grant heightened scrutiny to policies targeting transgender individuals, especially in military contexts?
3. Do universal injunctions overstep the judiciary’s constitutional role in separation-of-powers cases?
4. Should military decisions—even those affecting civil rights—receive blanket judicial deference?

The Broader Impact

This case is about more than just who can serve. It’s a collision point between constitutional protections, executive power, military necessity, and civil rights. The Court’s ruling could profoundly influence:

• The authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions,
• The standard of review for LGBTQ+ discrimination cases in federal law, and
• The scope of executive power in defining military service eligibility.

The decision, expected later this year, will serve as a barometer for the Court’s evolving approach to the intersection of military policy and civil rights—and may shape LGBTQ+ rights for years to come.

#TransgenderRights #MilitaryBan #SCOTUS2025 #TrumpAdministration #EqualProtection #LGBTQRights #MilitaryPolicy #LegalNews #CivilRightsLaw #FederalInjunctions

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-ban-on-transgender-service-members-from-the-military/