Transgender service members are appealing to the Supreme Court to sustain a federal judge’s order that prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a policy barring them from serving in the military. The policy under scrutiny was put forward by the Department of Defense in February and largely prohibits individuals with gender dysphoria, or those who have undergone medical treatments for it, from military service. More details can be found in the original SCOTUSblog article.
Senior U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle previously ruled against the policy, labeling it a “de facto blanket prohibition on transgender service.” This ruling was challenged when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to pause the enforcement of Settle’s order, resulting in the Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the policy aligns with conclusions from a panel during Trump’s administration, which deemed allowing gender dysphoric individuals to serve as incongruent with “military effectiveness and lethality.”
The lead plaintiff in the case is Commander Emily Shilling, whose distinguished career in the Navy includes over 60 combat missions and two decades of service. Plaintiffs like Shilling argue that the policy violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and dispute the notion that transgender service undermines military readiness. They assert that openly transgender participation in the military enhances readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion.
Despite the Trump administration’s argument that the policy targets gender dysphoria, rather than transgender identity per se, the plaintiffs argue that the real-world application of the ban is far broader. They emphasize that it mandates service members to conform solely to their birth-assigned sex, effectively equating to a ban on transgender individuals.
The Supreme Court’s approach to this issue, especially following historical context where a similar albeit narrower policy was once upheld, may hinge on current constitutional interpretations of equal protection. The Trump administration is now expected to respond to the plaintiffs’ brief before a Supreme Court ruling on the government’s petition emerges.