Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Request to Uphold Military Ban on Transgender Service Members

On Thursday morning, the Trump administration formally approached the Supreme Court, seeking permission to implement a controversial Department of Defense policy set to take effect in 2025. This policy would prohibit individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving in the U.S. military. The request comes shortly after U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issued a ruling that prevented the government from enforcing this policy nationwide.

Court Proceedings and Reactions

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the appeal shortly after Judge Settle’s ruling, which the Supreme Court justices have now responded to by requiring the challengers’ attorneys to submit their arguments by May 1 at 5 p.m.

Background of the Policy

President Donald Trump initiated the ban via executive orders on January 20; one order rescinded a previous directive by President Joe Biden that had allowed transgender individuals to serve openly. Another order mandated Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to enforce the restriction on those identified with gender dysphoria—defined as psychological distress stemming from a discrepancy between assigned gender at birth and an individual’s gender identity.

The Department of Defense followed up by issuing a policy in February that, with limited exceptions, disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria or those who have had medical interventions for it from military service.

Legal Challenge and Plaintiffs

The legal challenge to this policy includes seven active service members who identify as transgender and one individual wishing to join the military. Leading the plaintiffs is Commander Emily Shilling, a naval aviator with 19 years of experience, who has completed over 60 combat missions. Commander Shilling, who began her transition in 2021, noted that the Navy invested significantly in her training, amounting to approximately $20 million.

The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the constitutional right to equal protection. Judge Settle has agreed, labeling the policy as a “de facto blanket prohibition” on the service of transgender individuals in the military.

Government’s Argument

In response, Sauer criticized Settle’s ruling for encroaching upon the executive branch’s authority regarding military staffing decisions. He pointed out that during the Trump administration, an expert panel had determined that allowing service members with gender dysphoria would compromise “military effectiveness and lethality.” Sauer contended that professional military judgments regarding personnel should receive significant consideration.

The Solicitor General characterized the policy as distinguishing individuals based on their medical conditions rather than gender identity, which would warrant a less stringent constitutional evaluation known as rational-basis review. He claimed the government has substantial interests in ensuring military readiness, discipline, and managing costs, and that the policy rationally supports these interests.

Significance of the Appeal

Sauer also criticized the reliance on nationwide injunctions, arguing they empower federal courts to unnecessarily supervise decisions made by another branch of government and contribute to inefficiencies that harm the government’s operations. He recommended that, at the very least, the Supreme Court should restrict the impact of Settle’s order to the eight plaintiffs involved in the case.