Appeals court finds ban unconstitutional

A divided federal appeals court on June 1 said the Trump administration’s policy barring many transgender people from military service was likely unconstitutional, while allowing part of the policy to remain in effect as the case proceeds. The 2-1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. (cbsnews.com) Circuit left in place protections for the active-duty plaintiffs who sued, but allowed the administration to continue excluding transgender people seeking to join the military. Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority in key parts of the opinion, said the policy appeared rooted in animus rather than military necessity. (pbs.org) Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded on social media with a brief message: “See you at SCOTUS.” ### Which court ruled, and what exactly did it do? (pbs.org) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit split 2-1 on whether to keep a lower-court injunction in place against the Pentagon policy. Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins agreed the policy likely violated the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee as applied to the transgender service members already in uniform who brought the case. At the same time, Wilkins joined Judge Justin Walker in allowing the administration to enforce the policy against transgender people seeking to enlist or receive commissions while the litigation continues. The injunction the panel preserved is narrower than the one issued in March 2025 by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington. Reyes had blocked the policy more broadly after concluding that President Donald Trump’s executive order excluding transgender troops likely violated constitutional protections. (cbsnews.com) The appeals panel trimmed that relief to cover the active-duty plaintiffs in the case. ### What policy was the court reviewing? President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 targeting service members and applicants with gender dysphoria, saying the condition was inconsistent with military standards including readiness, cohesion and integrity. After that order, Hegseth directed the Pentagon to pause new accessions for people with a history of gender dysphoria and halt some medical care for transgender troops. (cbsnews.com) In February 2025, the Defense Department issued a policy presuming people with gender dysphoria were disqualified from service unless they obtained a waiver. The case before the D.C. Circuit was brought by six active-duty transgender service members and two people seeking to join the military, according to the Associated Press. (pbs.org) The administration appealed after Reyes granted a preliminary injunction in their favor. ### Why did the majority say the policy was likely unconstitutional? Judge Robert Wilkins wrote that the government’s stated rationale appeared to be a pretext and that the policy was “premised, at least in part,” on an illegitimate interest in harming transgender people. In a separate passage, he said the policy appeared driven by “the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Those findings went to the equal-protection analysis and to the court’s conclusion that the active-duty plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. (cbsnews.com) Politico reported that Wilkins also rejected the administration’s readiness arguments for the current service-member plaintiffs, noting officials did not dispute that those plaintiffs had served honorably, met military standards, and together logged 130 years of service and more than 80 commendations. (pbs.org) ### What did the dissent say? Judge Justin Walker said courts should defer to the executive branch on military personnel decisions. He wrote that judges lack the expertise and authority to decide whether the military may exclude the plaintiffs from service, according to the Associated Press. Walker would have allowed the administration to enforce the policy against both current troops and applicants. (cbsnews.com) Judge Judith Rogers broke from Wilkins on one point. Rogers said she would also have kept relief in place for transgender people seeking to enlist or be commissioned, though only for applicants involved in the suit. (politico.com) ### What happens next? The ruling does not take effect immediately, giving the Trump administration time to ask the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the transgender military ban to take effect while litigation continued in a separate case, a backdrop that shaped the appeals panel’s narrower order here. Hegseth’s June 1 post suggests the administration is preparing for a further appeal. (cbsnews.com) (politico.com) (pbs.org)