Supreme Court Allows Trump-Era Transgender Military Ban to Take Effect

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service members, reversing a lower court’s decision that had blocked the policy from going into effect.

The ruling gives the Trump administration a key legal win, even though the Court didn’t weigh in on the broader constitutional issues behind the ban or the executive order itself. President Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social account, sharing a news report that highlighted the victory.

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying they would have upheld the lower court’s injunction and dismissed the administration’s appeal.

The case, Shilling v. United States, challenges Trump’s executive order issued on January 27, which blocks transgender individuals from serving in the military. The policy directs the Pentagon to revise its medical standards related to gender identity and rescind any previous guidance that contradicts the new ban.

The Trump administration argued in court that delaying the policy would harm national security and military readiness. In a filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that the military shouldn’t be forced to continue a policy it deems harmful to its mission and cohesion.

Officials have defended the policy as necessary to preserve “military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline,” and to avoid what they claim are disproportionate healthcare costs.

The executive order was quickly met with legal challenges. Seven transgender service members filed lawsuits in federal courts in both Seattle and Washington, D.C. In one hearing, D.C. District Judge Ana Reyes grilled the administration’s lawyers with a rapid-fire series of questions touching on everything from religious values to pop culture, before suggesting the government delay the policy rollout.

In Seattle, the plaintiffs argued that the order unfairly targets transgender people, calling it discriminatory and insulting. They claimed it labeled all transgender individuals as unfit to serve, simply because of their identity.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state agreed with the plaintiffs in March, issuing a preliminary injunction to stop the government from enforcing the ban while the case played out. He called the order a “blanket prohibition” and said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims related to equal protection, free speech, and due process.

Settle said his injunction was meant to preserve the existing policy that allowed transgender individuals to serve, at least until the courts resolved the issue.

The Trump administration appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to lift the injunction. The panel—made up of judges appointed by Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden—ruled against the administration’s request for a stay.

That decision, however, was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court this week, allowing the ban to move forward while the legal battle continues.

Shilling v. United States is just one of several lawsuits challenging the Trump-era military policy. The decision comes amid a broader push by Trump, now seeking a return to office, to roll back Biden-era programs—including those focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across federal institutions.