Lead

A US appeals court on Monday partially upheld a lower court's injunction against the Trump administration's policy banning transgender people from military service, ruling that the policy was discriminatory while allowing the Pentagon to continue blocking new transgender enlistments for now. The 2-1 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Coverage comparison

The ruling drew widespread attention from international media, with outlets including Al Jazeera, The Guardian, the South China Morning Post, and The Hindu providing coverage. Most reports emphasized the split nature of the decision and the constitutional questions at stake. Al Jazeera framed the decision as a "violation of the Constitution," while The Guardian called the policy "illegal" and "based on animus." The South China Morning Post and The Hindu offered more measured tones, focusing on the procedural details and the partial nature of the ruling.

Key claims

  • The appeals court ruled 2-1 that the policy was "unlawfully motivated" and violated the constitutional right to equal protection of the law, as reported by multiple outlets.
  • The court blocked the expulsion of current transgender service members but allowed the Pentagon to continue barring transgender people from enlisting while litigation proceeds, according to The Guardian and The Hindu.
  • The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, held that the policy was "driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group," a phrase quoted by several sources.
  • The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicating the government would appeal, writing "See you at SCOTUS" on X, as noted by The Hindu.
  • The US Supreme Court had previously allowed the policy to go into effect last year while litigation continued, according to the South China Morning Post.
  • The policy, issued under a January 2025 executive order titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness," presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service, as reported by The Guardian.

Perspectives

The Court's Majority

Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority, argued that ending a military career is a greater hardship than delaying one's entry into service. He was joined in part by Judge Judith Rogers, who believed the injunction should also apply to those seeking to enlist. The majority concluded that the policy was discriminatory and likely unconstitutional.

The Dissent

Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that courts "have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks." This perspective underscores ongoing debates about judicial oversight of military policy.

The Plaintiffs and Advocacy Groups

Jennifer Levi of GLAD Law, representing the plaintiffs, applauded the decision, stating it "confirms that the Trump Administration has no legitimate basis to discharge transgender service members who have met every demanding standard." The plaintiffs include active-duty service members and others seeking to join the military.

The Administration

The administration has indicated it will continue to defend the policy, arguing that the military has broad powers to set enlistment standards. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's public statement suggested a likely appeal to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for further legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the administration's policy, but the practical effect is limited for now. Current transgender service members are protected from expulsion, while enlistment bans remain in place pending appeal. The case is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court, where the final outcome remains uncertain. As the litigation continues, the decision highlights the ongoing tension between military policy and constitutional protections.