In a decisive ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration, allowing the Pentagon’s controversial transgender military ban to go into effect. The court overturned a lower court injunction that had blocked the policy, enabling President Donald Trump’s executive order and associated measures to proceed, a victory for the White House.
This landmark decision is particularly significant as it concerns the Trump administration’s military policy and the treatment of transgender individuals within the armed forces. The ruling follows a series of legal challenges and lengthy battles in federal courts. While the Supreme Court’s decision does not address the core constitutional questions surrounding the policy, it represents a win for the Trump administration and bolsters its position on military readiness.
The Executive Order and the Trump Administration’s Stance
President Donald Trump signed the executive order on January 27, 2017, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to revise its guidance regarding transgender service members. The order called for the rescinding of any guidance that conflicted with the administration’s views on military readiness, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion, all of which the administration believes are negatively impacted by the inclusion of transgender individuals in the military.
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military presents issues related to military readiness and disproportionate costs. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the urgent need to implement the policy, arguing that delaying it would undermine the military’s operational capabilities.
“Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court – a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests,” Sauer stated in a brief filed with the court.
The Legal Journey: From District Courts to the Supreme Court
The path to the Supreme Court was complex, involving multiple legal challenges and a lower court ruling that temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s transgender military ban.
The initial legal challenge came when seven transgender military members sued the government, arguing that the executive order was discriminatory. The case was heard in Seattle federal court and in Washington, D.C., where the plaintiffs argued that the policy was baseless, as it labeled transgender individuals unfit to serve based on their gender identity rather than their ability to perform in a military role.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes grilled government lawyers in court, asking pointed questions about the logic behind the policy and whether it violated the rights of transgender individuals to serve in the military. Despite her questioning, the government was able to advance its case, appealing to higher courts.
In March 2021, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a preliminary injunction that blocked the Trump administration’s transgender ban from going into effect. Settle stated that the ban amounted to a “blanket prohibition” on transgender service members, violating their rights under the Equal Protection Clause, First Amendment, and procedural due process.
Settle’s ruling was seen as a significant victory for LGBTQ+ advocates, as it temporarily allowed transgender service members to serve openly in the military while the case proceeded through the courts.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s Involvement
The government quickly appealed Settle’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, composed of Atsushi Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali H. Desai, all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, ruled against the Trump administration’s request for a stay of Settle’s injunction. This refusal to grant the stay prompted the administration to escalate the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the transgender military ban to be implemented. The ruling came as a major setback for LGBTQ+ advocates and those challenging the policy, though it did not address the central constitutional questions at play in the case.
The Court’s decision, by not addressing the case’s merits, signaled a shift toward permitting the Trump administration’s policies to move forward without any further judicial obstruction. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the lower court’s ruling should have been upheld and that the case warranted further judicial scrutiny.
Despite this, President Trump celebrated the ruling, claiming it was a victory for military readiness and discipline. He expressed his satisfaction with the decision in a post on Truth Social, where he called the ruling a triumph for the military and for the American people.
Criticism and Backlash
While Trump hailed the ruling as a win, the decision sparked strong backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates, civil rights groups, and many Democrats. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a harmful and discriminatory ruling against transgender individuals who wish to serve in the U.S. military.
“Transgender people are being denied the right to serve their country simply because of who they are. The government should not be allowed to discriminate against qualified individuals who want to serve and protect our country,” said Chase Strangio, an ACLU attorney.
The Human Rights Campaign also voiced its displeasure, stating that the ruling represents an unfair and unjust burden on transgender individuals. The group emphasized that the military had made significant strides toward inclusion before Trump’s ban was implemented and that the Supreme Court’s decision would cause further harm to the LGBTQ+ community.
The Trump Administration’s Position on Military Readiness
The Trump administration has consistently argued that transgender service members are not suited for military service because of the unique medical needs and the potential costs associated with their care. The administration’s position is that these costs would disproportionately burden the military, diverting resources away from readiness and other operational needs.
In response to these criticisms, Trump has pointed to the policy’s potential to strengthen military discipline and cohesion. “We are putting America first,” he said in a statement following the ruling. “Our military must be focused on one mission: protecting our nation. Anything that detracts from that mission must be eliminated.”
Despite this, many military experts and former officials have disagreed with the Trump administration’s stance, arguing that transgender individuals can serve effectively and that their contributions to the armed forces should not be overlooked. Former defense officials have noted that allowing transgender people to serve in the military has not harmed military readiness and has, in many cases, improved morale and inclusion.
The Broader Impact
The Shilling v. United States case is part of a broader cultural and legal conflict over LGBTQ+ rights and their place in American society. The ruling is likely to set the stage for further legal battles regarding transgender rights and military service, and it could have significant implications for the ongoing national conversation about transgender rights in the workplace and in public life.
As the case moves through the courts and as public opinion continues to evolve, the issue of transgender rights in the military will remain a contentious topic. The Trump administration’s efforts to implement and enforce its transgender military ban have reignited debates about discrimination, equality, and the role of government in shaping social norms.
The Road Ahead
In the short term, the Supreme Court’s decision will allow the Trump administration’s ban on transgender military service to proceed. However, this ruling is likely to face continued legal challenges, especially as LGBTQ+ rights groups ramp up their efforts to reverse the policy in court.
The legal battle is far from over, and as the nation’s judicial landscape shifts, there may be further rulings that challenge the Trump administration’s stance on transgender issues. For now, the ruling stands as a major win for the Trump administration, bolstering its stance on military readiness and its broader agenda of restricting transgender rights in certain areas of public life.
The future of transgender rights in the military is uncertain, but the legal and political struggles surrounding this issue will likely continue to shape public discourse for years to come.
