The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to consider the legality of its policy effectively barring trans-identifying individuals from serving in the military.
In its petition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the high court to determine whether the War Department’s rule that “generally disqualifies” those who have “gender dysphoria, a history of the condition, or a history of related interventions” violates the “equal-protection component” of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The filing was made by U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who often represents the administration in oral arguments before the court.
At issue is a February 2025 Pentagon memo establishing guidance implementing such a policy. The directive came as part of the agency’s compliance with President Trump’s January 2025 executive order ordering War Secretary Pete Hegseth to revise the military’s policy on gender dysphoric individuals serving within 60 days the order’s implementation.
Upon request from trans-identifying individuals, D.C. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee with a laundry list of left-wing activism, issued a preliminary injunction in March 2025 blocking the policy from taking effect. A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later temporarily paused that order in December 2025.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court pausing a similar injunction by a different district court on the policy in May 2025, a different D.C. Circuit panel upheld a portion of Reyes’ injunction in June. In a 2-1 ruling, the Democrat-appointed majority held “that the government could not enforce the ban against the challengers who were already in the military,” as described by SCOTUSblog.
In asking the Supreme Court to take up the case, the Trump administration argued that the lower court’s holding that “the policy likely denies equal protection because it reflects invidious discrimination against trans-identifying people” is a “gravely erroneous” decision that warrants the justices’ review. It further contended that such reasoning “cannot be squared with this Court’s precedents or deference to the military.”
“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” the petition reads. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review. The Court should thus take this opportunity to address the constitutionality of the Hegseth policy and reverse the decision below …”
The Supreme Court is expected to begin its upcoming 2026 term in the coming weeks. At least four justices are required to agree to hear a case before it can be considered by the full court.
.jpg){kind=link}