Trump administration asks SCOTUS to uphold ban on ‘transgender’ troops

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court Aug. 28 to decide whether its restrictions on “transgender” military service violate the Constitution, arguing that lower courts improperly interfered with the government’s authority to determine who may serve in the armed forces. 

In a petition for review, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to reverse a federal appeals court ruling that blocked the administration from enforcing the policy against current “transgender” service members involved in the case.

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” Sauer wrote, calling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s ruling “gravely erroneous.”

The case, United States v. Talbott, stems from an executive order President Donald Trump signed shortly after returning to office in January 2025. The order directed military officials to adopt policies reflecting the administration’s position that the “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” are incompatible with the military’s standards for readiness and cohesion. 

The following month, War Secretary Pete Hegseth issued guidance in line with that order, generally disqualifying people with gender dysphoria from serving or enlisting in the military. 

A group of current and prospective service members who identify as “transgender” challenged the policy in Washington, D.C., arguing that it discriminates against them and violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. 

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction in March 2025 blocking enforcement of the policy. Reyes described the policy as “soaked in animus” and found the administration had not shown that allowing “transgender” personnel to serve harmed military effectiveness. 

A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled June 1 that the administration could not apply the policy to the current service members involved in the lawsuit but allowed the government to continue its policy of not accepting new “transgender” recruits, as Zeale News previously reported.

>> Appeals court partially blocks Trump's ‘transgender’ military rule, keeps restrictions on new recruits <<

In the Trump administration’s petition, Sauer told the justices that the “military has determined” its policy is “necessary to maintain its ‘rigorous standards’ and ‘deliver a ready, deployable force.’” 

Sauer argued that courts traditionally defer to the president and Congress on military personnel decisions and that the D.C. Circuit had improperly substituted its judgment for that of military officials. 

“If allowed to stand, the court of appeals’ decision would represent an ‘unprecedented intervention into military affairs,’ in contravention of this Court’s precedents requiring ‘defer[ence] to the political branches’ military judgments,” Sauer wrote.

Sauer also contended that the lower court used an overly stringent form of constitutional review known as heightened scrutiny. He argued that courts should instead use rational basis review, a more deferential standard, because the policy classifies service members according to the medical condition of gender dysphoria rather than “transgender” status. 

Under rational basis review, the government must show a reasonable connection between the policy and a legitimate government interest. Sauer argued that the military’s interests in readiness, cohesion, discipline, and cost-savings satisfy that requirement. 

The Supreme Court allowed the administration to enforce the policy in May 2025, temporarily lifting a nationwide injunction in a separate case while the government appealed that ruling. The justices did not decide the policy’s constitutionality at that stage.

According to SCOTUSblog, the challengers’ response to the petition is expected by late September.