A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration’s policy targeting transgender military personnel is likely unconstitutional, allowing transgender service members who brought the lawsuit to remain in the armed forces while the case proceeds through the courts.

Get today's headlines by email

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court order preventing the Department of Defense from removing active-duty personnel because of gender dysphoria. However, the ruling does not stop the Pentagon from restricting transgender individuals from joining the military.

Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority, said the policy introduced under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared arbitrary and motivated by hostility toward a politically unpopular group.

“At this preliminary stage,” Wilkins wrote, “the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus,” concluding that it likely violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Court Draws Distinction Between Recruits and Serving Personnel

The appeals court emphasized that active-duty personnel face more immediate and significant harm than prospective recruits.

According to the ruling, individuals seeking to join the military could pursue legal remedies later if the policy is ultimately struck down. By contrast, service members facing discharge could suffer irreparable damage to their military careers.

Wilkins noted that even if dismissed personnel were eventually reinstated, ending a military career would impose a far greater hardship than delaying the start of one.

As a result, the court allowed protections for the plaintiffs currently serving while leaving recruitment restrictions in place during the ongoing litigation.

LGBTQ Advocacy Groups Welcome Decision

Attorneys representing the transgender service members described the ruling as a major victory.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi said the decision confirmed there was no legitimate basis for discharging transgender personnel who had met military standards and demonstrated their ability to serve.

National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter called the ruling a “dramatic shift in the status quo,” noting that some service members had been preparing to face review boards and possible discharge despite years of service.

Dissent Warns Against Judicial Intervention

Judge Justin Walker, the lone dissenter on the panel, argued that courts should defer to military and political leaders on decisions regarding military personnel.

Walker acknowledged the rights at issue but said service members do not enjoy all the same protections as civilians. He argued that judges lack the expertise and constitutional authority to determine who may serve in the armed forces.

“The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” he wrote.

The Department of Defense did not immediately comment on the ruling.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 2 June 2026

View full article

4 hours ago, webfact said:

He argued that judges lack the expertise and constitutional authority to determine who may serve in the armed forces.

The case isn't about the manner of their recruitment but their unconstitutional removal as military soldiers.

Ok this issue, I’m conflicted. I DO think the military is a somewhat unique entity .. and for the most part, operates with its own justice system, standards and policies- and that it must have a streamlined and defined leadership chain of command that is absolute. and that’s substantially different than that of the civilian universe.. that said, I don’t think the military can, or should, operate wholly without any regard to civilian law… and yes, to even some civilian legal oversight and control…. but I do think that the military should operate principally as a non-civilian entity.

33 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The case isn't about the manner of their recruitment but their unconstitutional removal as military soldiers.

Maybe, if they reclassified them as Canon folder this small demarcation problem would fix itself?

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The case isn't about the manner of their recruitment but their unconstitutional removal as military soldiers.

Putting them out on the frontline isn’t an unconstitutional removal.

12 minutes ago, novacova said:

Putting them out on the frontline isn’t an unconstitutional removal.

But would be a huge waste of talent killing your logistics and IT staff.

Whose barrack rooms are they billeted in, men's or women's? Doesn't seem fair on the occupants of either.

I'm not a military person, but I have worked in many different teams of varying sizes. My belief is that team cohesion is really important, that things that disrupt that risk the mission, therefore a person who causes that disruption cannot be in that team. That does not necessarily mean they are useless and need to get thrown out, there ought to be other roles that need to support the frontline team from the background. For that reason I tend to support the courts' decision.

Hack-tivist judges at it again .. I say let them in and put them on the front line -first boots/heels on the ground or in a rubber dingy looking for sea mines

The ruling blocking the military from discharging personnel based on sexual preference is simply a win for common sense and human rights!

It is clear that Trump, Hegseth, and this entire administration are suffering from a toxic cocktail of deep-seated phobias.

Their obsession with purging qualified personnel stems from pure homophobia and transphobia, masked as military readiness.

When you add their rampant xenophobia, chauvinism, and ethnocentrism to the mix, it’s obvious they are driven by a rigid, outdated heteronormativity rather than what actually makes a military strong.

6 hours ago, wombat said:

Maybe, if they reclassified them as Canon folder this small demarcation problem would fix itself?

Cannon fodder is what they are when all is said and done.

4 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

The ruling blocking the military from discharging personnel based on sexual preference is simply a win for common sense and human rights!

It is clear that Trump, Hegseth, and this entire administration are suffering from a toxic cocktail of deep-seated phobias.

Their obsession with purging qualified personnel stems from pure homophobia and transphobia, masked as military readiness.

When you add their rampant xenophobia, chauvinism, and ethnocentrism to the mix, it’s obvious they are driven by a rigid, outdated heteronormativity rather than what actually makes a military strong.

Not sure it's an obsession, apart from Hegseth who's a religious nutter.

They do that for the Trump's fanbase to give them a sense of power. Of course, they cannot give them real power (on money), so they support their hate of LGBTs and foreigners. In particular as they are unable to deliver on the real issues. 😀

18 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

heteronormativity

I had to look that one up....the societal belief or assumption that heterosexuality (attraction between a man and a woman) is the default, natural, and only normal way of being.

According to the ruling, individuals seeking to join the military could pursue legal remedies later if the policy is ultimately struck down. By contrast, service members facing discharge could suffer irreparable damage to their military careers.

Strange that a lot of the same characters didn't gave a rat's ass when they were ruining the careers of dedicated personnel, for declining an experimental gene therapy.