WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove thousands of active-duty members of the military because they are transgender.
The justices on Tuesday granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and set aside orders for now from judges who had blocked the new policy set by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The court issued a brief order and did not explain its reasons. The three liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented and said they voted to deny the appeal.
The decision is consistent with the court’s deference to the military. But trans rights advocates called it a “purge” of active-duty troops who have served honorably.
Following Trump’s lead, Hegseth issued a memo on Feb. 26 that said individuals who have a “diagnosis or history” of gender dysphoria are “incompatible” with military service.
It is unclear how many transgender people are serving in the U.S. armed forces. Past estimates said the number was greater than 15,000, but the Defense Department said its new policies would apply to 4,240 people on active duty.
Although the administration contended the new policy was not a “ban,” it calls for the removal of those who underwent a gender transition.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation called the ruling “a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense. By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.”
The court’s order allows the Defense Department to begin enforcing its new policy even while the legal challenges against it proceed in the lower courts.
Upon taking office in January, Trump complained in an executive order that U.S. armed forces had been “recently afflicted with a radical gender ideology.” He said the Defense Department must “establish high standards of troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity.” It would be “inconsistent” with those standards to have “individuals with gender dysphoria,” he said.
Seven transgender service members who filed suit in Seattle said Trump’s decree was based on “animus” and ignored evidence that they had served honorably and well.
The lead plaintiff, Cmdr. Emily Shilling, has been a Navy pilot for 19 years and flown more than 60 combat missions. She transitioned within the Navy in 2021 under a policy set by the Biden administration.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that this new “blanket prohibition on transgender service” was discriminatory and outdated. It relied on concerns raised by military leaders before transgender troops were permitted to serve openly, he said.
Shilling has “1,750 flight hours in high performance Navy jets — including the F/A-18 Super Hornet — and has earned three air medals,” the judge said. “Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender.”
He said the government “provided no evidence” that “military readiness or unit cohesion” had been “adversely impacted by open transgender service.”
Settle not only ruled for the plaintiffs but imposed a nationwide bar against the new policy. His ruling followed a similar decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington.
When the 9th Circuit refused to lift the nationwide order against Trump’s ban on transgender troops, the administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
In his appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer accused the judges of overstepping their authority and “usurping the Executive Branch’s authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces.”
He said the military has long disqualified service members based on “hundreds of medical conditions” including asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure as well as eating disorders or autism.
Sauer told the court that a Defense Department study said troops with gender dysphoria are more likely to be “non-deployable” for significant periods of time and may need costly medical care.
He noted the court in 2018 had set aside challenges to a similar order from the first Trump administration restricting service by transgender persons, and he said the court should do the same again.
In response, the transgender troops said the court should stand back for now and “preserve the status quo” while the appeals are heard in the lower courts.
“Equal service by openly transgender service members has improved our military’s readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, while discharging transgender service members from our Armed Forces would harm all three,” they told the court. “For nearly a decade, across multiple administrations, thousands of transgender people have openly served in our military with dedication, honor, and distinction.”
LGBTQ+ rights advocates described the new order as a purge.
The Trump administration “is asking for a shocking, unprecedented purge of thousands of current service members for a reason unrelated to their ability to serve,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This type of mass purge has never before happened in our nation’s history.”
