On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the Trump administration’s request to immediately implement its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. This decision allows the Pentagon to discharge service members diagnosed with or having a history of gender dysphoria and to bar transgender Americans from enlisting. The unsigned order, which overrode a nationwide preliminary injunction, was opposed by the Court’s three liberal justices and represents a significant legal win for President Donald Trump, while posing a major setback for thousands of active transgender troops.
The policy, authorized under Executive Order 14183 and enforced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, requires the removal of all transgender personnel from the military regardless of their performance or qualifications, and prohibits future enlistment. The order temporarily halts a March 27 injunction issued in Commander Emily Shilling et al. v. United States, enabling the policy to take effect as the case continues through appeals in the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court.
One of the plaintiffs, Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling—a decorated Navy aviator with over 60 combat missions and the first transgender pilot cleared for tactical jets—has become a key figure in the ongoing legal challenge. Civil rights organizations argue that the policy stems from discrimination rather than concerns about military effectiveness.
In response to the ruling, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation issued a joint statement calling it “a devastating blow” to transgender service members who have proven their commitment and capabilities. They contend the policy is constitutionally flawed, driven by bias, and ultimately destined to be overturned.
The administration turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief after the Ninth Circuit declined to grant a similar request in April. In their rebuttal, attorneys for the plaintiffs condemned the policy as based on the “shocking proposition that transgender people do not exist” and asserted that it fails constitutional scrutiny. The plaintiffs, with more than 115 combined years of service and over 70 commendations, argue that the policy unfairly targets a highly qualified group of service members.
Critics also highlight that the 2025 ban goes beyond Trump’s earlier policy—rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021—by removing all exemptions, omitting any grandfather clause, and mandating discharge within 60 days. Legal challenges are ongoing in other federal courts, including Talbott v. United States in Washington, D.C., and Ireland v. Hegseth in New Jersey, where judges have questioned the administration’s rationale. Judge Ana Reyes, overseeing the Talbott case, has already indicated the new ban is likely unconstitutional and driven by bias.
