The Trump administration scored a significant legal victory on Tuesday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the administration’s policy barring transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
In a 2–1 decision, the three-judge panel ruled that the policy is likely constitutional and may continue to be enforced while litigation proceeds — dealing another blow to activists who have sought to block the policy through the courts.
Appeals Court Sides With Trump and Pentagon
The ruling reverses a March injunction issued by a lower court that temporarily blocked the policy. That injunction was already weakened in May, when the Supreme Court allowed the ban to go back into effect while legal challenges continued. Tuesday’s decision solidifies that momentum.
Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Republican appointees, concluded that the policy reflects a legitimate military judgment and falls squarely within the president’s authority as commander in chief.
The court wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump acted within longstanding military norms when determining that individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not meet the armed forces’ medical fitness standards.
“The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks,” the judges wrote.
“For decades, these requirements barred service by individuals with gender dysphoria.”
Military Readiness, Not Politics
The panel emphasized that the decision was not about politics, ideology, or discrimination, but about military readiness and effectiveness — an area where courts have traditionally deferred to elected leaders and military professionals.
The judges noted that while standards have shifted over the years depending on who occupied the White House, the Constitution grants the president broad authority to determine who may serve.
“The policy reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests,” the court stated.
The opinion also pointed out that the military routinely excludes individuals with certain medical conditions that interfere with deployability, cohesion, or long-term readiness — and that gender dysphoria had historically been included in those exclusions.
Dissent Warns of Discrimination
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, argued that the policy unfairly targets transgender service members and questioned whether it was truly rooted in medical necessity. However, the majority rejected that framing, finding no constitutional violation at this stage of the case.
A Broader Shift Under Trump
The ruling represents another judicial win for President Trump as his administration continues to roll back progressive-era policies across the federal government — particularly those affecting the military.
Since returning to office, Trump has made restoring what he calls “combat readiness and discipline” a central theme of his defense agenda, arguing that the armed forces should focus on war-fighting, not social experimentation.
Tuesday’s decision reinforces that approach and signals that courts may be increasingly reluctant to intervene in military policy disputes — especially when the administration can point to historical precedent and professional military judgment.
What Happens Next
While the case will continue to be litigated, the appeals court ruling means the ban remains in effect indefinitely unless overturned by a higher court. Given the Supreme Court’s earlier decision allowing enforcement to resume, legal experts say challengers now face an uphill battle.
For the Trump administration, the message is clear: the courts are backing the commander in chief’s authority to set military standards — and Democrats and activist groups don’t like it one bit.