The United States Supreme Court has allowed a ban on transgender military members to take effect while legal challenges over the restriction continue.
On Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority issued an unsigned order lifting a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the ban from taking effect.
The order also indicated that the Supreme Court’s three left-leaning judges – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – sought to deny the emergency request to lift the injunction.
Since taking office for a second term on January 20, President Donald Trump has sought to curtail the rights and visibility of transgender people in the US, including through restrictions on military service.
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order declaring that his administration would only “recognise two sexes, male and female”. That same day, he rescinded an order from his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, that allowed transgender troops to serve in the military.
Then, on January 27, he unveiled a new directive, called “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness”. It compared being transgender with adopting a “‘false’ gender identity”.
Such an identity, the order added, was not compatible with the “rigorous standards necessary for military service”.
“Adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life,” the executive order said.
“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”
That executive order sparked a slew of legal challenges, including the one at the centre of Tuesday’s Supreme Court order.
In that case, seven active-duty service members – as well as a civil rights organisation and another person hoping to enlist – argued that a ban on their transgender identity was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Advocates for the group point out that the seven have together earned more than 70 medals for their service. The lead plaintiff, Commander Emily Shilling, had spent nearly two decades in the Navy, flying 60 missions as a combat pilot. Her lawyers estimate that nearly $20m has been invested in her training during that time.
But the Trump administration has argued that the presence of transgender troops is a liability for the military.
“Another MASSIVE victory in the Supreme Court!” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on social media following Tuesday’s order.
“President Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth] are restoring a military that is focused on readiness and lethality.”
Hegseth also posted a short message, using an acronym for the Department of Defence: “No More Trans @ DoD.”
This is not the first time Trump has attempted to exclude transgender people from the armed forces. In July 2017, shortly after taking office for his first term, Trump announced a similar policy on the social media platform Twitter, now known as X.
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump wrote in consecutive posts, divided by ellipses.
Similarly, in 2019, the Supreme Court allowed that ban to take effect. Then, in 2021, Biden’s executive order nullified it.
The Trump administration pointed to its past success at the Supreme Court in its emergency appeal to lift the lower court’s injunction blocking its latest ban on transgender troops.
That temporary injunction was the decision of a US district court judge in Tacoma, Washington: Benjamin Settle. Himself a former army captain, Settle was named to his position under former President George W Bush, a Republican.
In March, Settle blocked the ban on transgender troops, saying that – while the government made reference to “military judgement” in its filings – its arguments showed an “absence of any evidence” that the restriction had to do with military matters.
“The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” he wrote.
Other judges have likewise issued injunctions, including District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, DC. She ruled in a case where 14 transgender service members sued against Trump’s ban, citing the right to equal protection under the law, enshrined in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed – some risking their lives – to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote in her decision, issued shortly before Settle’s in March.
Of the more than 2.1 million troops serving in the US military, less than 1 percent are estimated to be transgender.
One senior official estimated last year that there are only about 4,200 transgender service members on active duty, though advocates say that number could be an undercount, given the risk of violence and discrimination associated with being openly transgender.
The human rights groups Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation have been among those supporting transgender service members in their fight against Trump’s ban. The two organisations issued a joint statement on Tuesday denouncing the high court’s decision.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice,” they wrote.
“We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
