In a major win for the Trump administration, a federal appellate court upheld the Pentagon’s prohibition on trans-identifying individuals from serving in the military on Tuesday.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals fully paused a March injunction issued by Biden-appointed District Judge Ana Reyes that sought to prevent the aforementioned policy from going into effect. As The Federalist’s Joy Pullmann previously reported, Reyes “identifies as some variety of LGBT, is a longtime Democrat Party donor and, as a lawyer, litigated against the first Trump administration.”
Writing for the majority, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, noted how War Secretary Pete Hegseth “concluded” that adopting a policy prohibiting gender dysphoric individuals from service “would advance important military interests of combat readiness, unit cohesion, and cost control.” Despite the secretary’s consultation of existing data and “more recent studies” to justify the decision, Katsas wrote, the district court “nonetheless preliminarily enjoined the 2025 policy based on its own contrary assessment of the evidence.”
“In our view, the court afforded insufficient deference to the Secretary’s considered judgment. Accordingly, we stay the preliminary injunction pending the government’s appeal,” Katsas wrote, later adding that, “The Hegseth Policy is likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests.”
Katsas was joined in his opinion by Judge Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee.
Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Judge Nina Pillard penned a lengthy dissent, in which she claimed that the government’s adoption of the policy is “based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity.”
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling marks the second major litigation victory for the Trump administration in its battle over the policy.
Back in May, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted a separate lower court injunction that similarly attempted to prevent these standards from being adopted by the military. The decision was 6-3, with Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
In his Tuesday opinion, Katsas harkened back to the high court’s temporary order as further evidence favoring the Trump administration in the case.
He specifically noted that by granting the government’s request to pause the injunction, the Supreme Court “already has held that the government is likely to succeed on its contention that the Hegseth Policy does not violate equal protection.” He also argued that the high court’s order further “indicates that the government would suffer an irreparable injury if the Hegseth Policy were enjoined pending appellate review of preliminary injunctions.”
At this point, plaintiffs in the case may now seek a full rehearing before the entire D.C. Circuit Court (“en banc” review). They may also ultimately file an emergency application for stay at the Supreme Court, which, as previously noted, has already terminated one lower court blockade on the policy and would likely do so again in separate cases over the same issue.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
