Supreme Court Greenlights Military Dismissals of Transgender Troops, Siding with Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that transgender Americans can be barred from military service, clearing the path for the Trump administration to expel thousands of active-duty troops. The decision follows an executive order signed by President Trump in January, which classified transgender individuals as unfit for military duty, arguing that recognizing their gender identity contradicted the values of humility and selflessness required in service.

In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum disqualifying those with gender dysphoria from serving, mandating their immediate separation unless they had never attempted to transition. This policy sparked legal action from seven transgender service members and a prospective recruit, who contended that the ban was unlawful.

The plaintiffs asserted that the policy stemmed from “an unprecedented degree of animus” toward transgender individuals, arguing that it was based on the untenable premise that such people do not exist. Two lower courts initially sided with them, temporarily barring enforcement of Hegseth’s directive.

President Trump urged the Supreme Court to intervene, claiming that lower court rulings undermined the military’s operational standards. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer emphasized that a judge’s intervention in military matters constituted irreparable harm to governmental authority.

Currently, of the more than two million personnel in the U.S. military, only 4,240 identify as transgender. Trump’s initial ban during his first term was reversed by the Biden administration, which allowed transgender individuals to serve openly for four years. This latest ruling signals a potential return to more restrictive policies similar to those previously enacted.

Transgender service members assert that both bans mirror discriminatory practices. Under former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, troops were allowed to serve openly, honoring prior enlistment contracts. In contrast, Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin affirmed that transgender individuals could serve, provided they met the same standards as their peers.

Judicial opinions reflected skepticism toward the ban’s justification. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle blocked Hegseth’s policy, questioning why individuals who had served without issue for four years were suddenly deemed unfit. In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes remarked that historical precedent shows marginalized groups often face military readiness concerns as a means to exclude them.

A panel on the D.C. Circuit echoed these sentiments, with Judge Cornelia Pillard highlighting the lack of justification beyond a perceived distaste for transgender individuals. The ongoing legal battle underscores the contentious and evolving nature of military policy regarding transgender service members.