A US appeals court has blocked Donald Trump’s push to remove transgender troops from the military. The judges found the policy was rooted in hostility, not military necessity.
The ruling marks a setback for the administration, which had directed the Pentagon to begin discharging transgender service members. A divided three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., stated that the administration’s justification for the policy was not supported by the record before the court. The majority opinion pointed to what it described as “direct evidence” of animus toward a politically unpopular group.
Donald Trump faces block from court over transgender in military appeal
Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the 2-1 majority, stated, “Some of those disqualifications are completely unexplained and have no reasonable justification.” The policy, he added, was “driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.”
The court also addressed language used in policy documents issued by senior defense officials. The documents described gender identity as incompatible with “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” Wilkins argued that such statements had been made repeatedly. He said they came from the officials responsible for shaping the policy. Wilkins added that this left little room for doubt about their intent.
“Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line, ‘who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’ we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications,” he wrote.
The ruling largely upholds a lower court decision issued in March 2025. District Judge Ana Reyes previously described the policy as “unabashedly demeaning” and “soaked in animus.” Thus, finding no factual basis for the administration’s claims. Monday’s appellate ruling means that currently serving transgender personnel cannot be discharged while the case continues. However, the Pentagon may continue enforcing restrictions on new transgender recruits during the ongoing litigation.
The case was brought by more than two dozen active-duty service members and prospective recruits. Their legal team argued that the policy violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Originally reported by Devanshi Basu on Mandatory.
Leave a Reply