In a recent move, the administration of President Donald Trump approached the Supreme Court, seeking judicial approval to implement a 2025 Department of Defense policy that bars transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. This request follows a decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in March, which blocked the government from enforcing such a policy nationwide. Read more.
The controversy began in January when President Trump issued an executive order overturning a prior directive from former President Joe Biden, which had permitted transgender military service. Trump subsequently ordered the Secretary of Defense to establish a ban specifically targeting individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a condition of psychological distress arising from a discrepancy between assigned sex at birth and gender identity.
The Department of Defense’s policy, announced following Trump’s directive, effectively disqualifies individuals with gender dysphoria or those undergoing medical treatments for the condition from military service, save for certain exceptions. This has led to the involvement of plaintiffs, including seven transgender service members and one prospective service member. Commander Emily Shilling, the lead plaintiff, holds a distinguished military career, having participated in over 60 combat missions. She argues the Navy has invested substantial resources in her training. Commander Shilling and her co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting that the policy breaches constitutional equal protection rights.
Judge Settle sided with the plaintiffs, describing the policy as a “de facto blanket prohibition on transgender service.” Despite this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit chose not to halt the district court’s order amid the ongoing government appeal. The U.S. Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, has countered Settle’s ruling by defending the executive branch’s prerogative to set military personnel policies and questioning federal courts’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. Sauer requested the Supreme Court to either stay Settle’s ruling or at least curtail its reach to only the individual plaintiffs in this case.
Sauer underscored precedents, noting that the Supreme Court had previously permitted implementation of a similar policy during the earlier Trump administration. He argued that such policies were essential to uphold military readiness, unit cohesion, and sustainable financial management related to defense expenditures. These issues are poised for further litigation in the appeals process and, potentially, before the Supreme Court itself.