A D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s transgender military service ban, dissolving a previous injunction that had temporarily blocked its enforcement.
The majority decision found that the lower court failed to show sufficient deference to the Pentagon’s policy-making authority, emphasizing longstanding judicial precedent that discourages courts from second-guessing military decisions.
The big picture: Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao (both Trump appointees) authored the majority opinion, which argued the Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection, and questioned whether any form of heightened scrutiny should apply to the policy.
- The court cited Supreme Court precedent supporting the contention that such military policies are generally lawful and that the government is likely to succeed in defending the ban under equal protection challenges.
- The Supreme Court had previously upheld a similar military transgender ban following challenges to an executive order under the Trump administration that sought to exclude those with a “gender identity” differing from their sex assigned at birth.
Driving the news: The original injunction against Hegseth’s policy had been issued in March by District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee.
- The government’s defense of the policy referenced the “Mattis Policy,” which promoted a “lethal, ready force” and ordered phased restrictions on transgender troops under former Defense Secretary James Mattis.
- Administration lawyers presented studies suggesting as many as 40 percent of those diagnosed with gender dysphoria might be deemed non-deployable within two years, and cited higher rates of psychiatric diagnoses and suicide attempts among transgender individuals.
Go deeper: Judge Cornelia Pillard (an Obama appointee) dissented, criticizing the policy as discriminatory and rooted in “denigration and vitriol,” arguing it excludes transgender people categorically rather than on medical grounds.
- Pillard asserted that the military’s justification lacked substantive evidence and was instead motivated by animus against transgender individuals, charging the policy with undermining the careers of qualified service members.
