A Step Backwards: Supreme Court Allows Transgender Military Ban to Take Effect

May 6
12 min read

Updated: May 7

By: Cassandra Williamson

Veteran: USN, USMC, US Naval Academy graduate 1984

6 May 2025, Tuesday

Today marks a disheartening day for transgender service members in the United States. In a move that will undoubtedly send shockwaves through the community, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military to take effect while legal challenges continue.

This decision effectively pauses a lower court order that had blocked the implementation of this discriminatory policy nationwide. While this is not the final ruling on the matter, the fact that the Supreme Court has allowed the ban to proceed is a significant setback and casts a shadow of uncertainty over the futures of thousands of dedicated transgender service members.

The policy in question, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following an executive order by President Trump in January, generally disqualifies individuals with "gender dysphoria" or a history of medical interventions related to gender transition from serving in the military. This policy reverses the more inclusive stance adopted by the Biden administration, which allowed transgender individuals to serve openly.

The administration argues that this policy is necessary for military readiness, citing concerns about the "medical, surgical, and mental health constraints" associated with gender dysphoria. However, critics and advocates for transgender rights vehemently disagree. They point to the years of honorable service by transgender individuals under the previous policy, with no evidence of detriment to military effectiveness or unit cohesion. Many see this ban as rooted in prejudice and a fundamental misunderstanding of transgender identities.

The Supreme Court's decision was brief and unsigned, offering no explanation for the decision. Notably, the court's three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the administration's request to allow the ban to take effect.

This development is particularly concerning as it could lead to the discharge of currently serving transgender individuals, disrupting their careers and impacting military units. The lead plaintiff in one of the legal challenges, Commander Emily Shilling, a Navy pilot with nearly two decades of service and numerous combat missions, exemplifies the dedication and capability of transgender service members.

The legal battles against this ban will continue in the lower courts. However, today's Supreme Court action is a stark reminder of the challenges and discrimination that the transgender community continues to face. It is crucial for allies and advocates to stand in solidarity with our transgender service members during this difficult time and to continue the fight for equality and inclusion in all aspects of society.

While the Supreme Court's order itself is a brief, unsigned document, you can find reports and analyses of the decision from various news outlets:

These sources provide further details on the ruling and the ongoing legal challenges.

The Path Forward with Cassandra Williamson

Tune in every weekday at 6 PM Eastern and 3 PM Pacific as I delve into and discuss news stories.

Connect with me on social media:

Youtube

Facebook

x.com (Twitter)

Wednesday Zoom Meeting

Registration Information

Join me every Wednesday at 7:30 PM Eastern

Topic: news tips and story ideas, plus check-in

Registration is required. Click HERE to register.

All the best,

Cassandra Williamson

"Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

by Dylan Thomas

In-Depth Analysis

Supreme Court Greenlights Trump's Transgender Military Ban: A Devastating Blow to Equality and Service

By: Cassandra Williamson

The Path Forward, Midday Muster

Veteran: USN, USMC, US Naval Academy 84

6 May 2025, Tuesday

The United States Supreme Court, on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, delivered a significant decision regarding the Trump administration's policy on transgender individuals serving in the military. The court allowed the administration to begin enforcing its ban, effectively putting a hold on a lower court order that had temporarily prevented the policy from taking effect.1 This development is undoubtedly a setback for transgender service members, both those currently serving with dedication and those who aspire to join the ranks to protect our nation. The ruling has ignited concerns and anxieties within the transgender community and among their allies, casting a shadow over the principles of equality and inclusivity in the armed forces.

The journey of transgender individuals serving in the US military has been marked by periods of progress and regression. Prior to 2016, a ban on openly transgender service members was in effect. However, in that year, the Obama administration made a significant step forward by lifting the ban, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly.33 This policy change was hailed as a victory for equality and an opportunity for the military to benefit from the talents and skills of all qualified Americans. This inclusive era, however, proved to be short-lived. In 2017, President Trump announced his intention to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.2 A revised ban policy was subsequently issued by his administration in 2018.33 Despite legal challenges, the Supreme Court in 2019 allowed this ban to take effect while the legal proceedings continued.3 When President Biden assumed office in 2021, he reversed the Trump administration's ban, once again allowing transgender individuals to serve openly.3 However, following his second inauguration in January 2025, President Trump renewed his efforts by issuing an executive order titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness," which effectively reinstated the ban.1

The current policy focuses on "gender dysphoria" – defined by the Defense Department as the "marked incongruence" between a person's experienced gender and their gender assigned at birth – as a medical condition that disqualifies individuals from military service.1 This new policy goes further than the previous one by including the discharge of active-duty transgender service members in addition to banning their enlistment.1 The Trump administration argues that this policy does not discriminate against transgender individuals outright but rather targets a specific medical condition.1 However, this justification has been met with skepticism and legal challenges, with many arguing that it is merely a veiled attempt to discriminate against transgender people. Judge Benjamin Settle, in a lower court ruling, rejected this argument, stating that it is "common sense" that banning those with gender dysphoria is effectively a ban on transgender individuals.1 This highlights a key point of contention: whether the focus on "gender dysphoria" is a legitimate medical distinction or a discriminatory proxy for transgender status.

On May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court acted on this renewed ban by granting a stay on a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court.1 This order effectively allows the Trump administration's ban to be enforced while legal challenges continue to make their way through the judicial system, specifically in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court's decision was not unanimous; the court's three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented, indicating their opposition to allowing the ban to take effect at this stage.1 The official Supreme Court order can be accessed here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050625zr_6j37.pdf .56 The fact that a majority of the Supreme Court justices have allowed the ban to proceed, even temporarily, suggests a potential inclination to ultimately uphold the administration's policy.

The Trump administration's arguments in favor of the ban center on the assertion that it is necessary to maintain high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity within the military.1 They also raise concerns about the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints associated with gender dysphoria.1 In legal filings, the administration has argued that the policy classifies individuals based on a medical condition, not solely on transgender status.3 However, transgender service members and advocacy groups vehemently oppose the ban, arguing that it is rooted in animus and prejudice against transgender people and is not supported by any credible evidence demonstrating a negative impact on military readiness or unit cohesion.1 They point to the successful open service of transgender individuals in the military for several years as evidence that their inclusion does not harm military effectiveness.1 Lower courts had previously sided with the service members, with judges in Washington state and Washington D.C. issuing rulings that blocked the ban, characterizing it as discriminatory, unsupported, and "soaked in animus".1 The core of the legal challenge rests on the argument that the ban violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.1

The Supreme Court's stay order has immediate and potentially devastating consequences for transgender individuals serving in the military. It allows the enforcement of a ban that could lead to the discharge of thousands of active-duty transgender troops.1 Individuals like Navy pilot Emily Schilling, who has served with distinction for nearly two decades, including over 60 combat missions, now face an uncertain future.1 The prospect of losing their careers, income, and the respect earned through years of dedicated service is a harsh reality for these brave individuals.5 Furthermore, many argue that this ban will negatively impact military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, the very aspects the administration claims to protect.3

The Supreme Court's decision has been met with strong condemnation from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign described the ruling as a "devastating blow" to transgender service members, emphasizing that it sanctions a policy rooted in prejudice rather than military readiness.1 Other organizations like GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) have also been at the forefront of legal challenges against the ban.2 These advocacy groups have made it clear that they remain committed to fighting this discriminatory policy through ongoing legal battles.1

It is crucial to remember that the Supreme Court's decision to grant a stay is not a final judgment on the merits of the case.1 The legal challenge will now continue in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 The stay will remain in effect until the Ninth Circuit disposes of the appeal and the Supreme Court either disposes of a petition for a writ of certiorari or denies it.56 There remains the possibility that the Supreme Court could ultimately decide to hear the case on its merits, which would have significant long-term implications.56 In the meantime, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has issued a policy giving military services 30 days to identify and begin the separation process for transgender service members.9

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to allow the Trump administration's ban on transgender military service to take effect is a deeply disappointing development. It casts a shadow over the lives and careers of dedicated and honorable transgender service members and undermines the principle of equal opportunity in the US armed forces. While this ruling presents a significant hurdle, the fight for equality and the right to serve for all qualified individuals must and will continue.

Link to Official Document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/050625zr_6j37.pdf

Year	Policy/Event:
Pre-2016	Ban on openly transgender service members.
2016	Obama administration lifts the ban, allowing open service.
2017	President Trump announces initial ban via Twitter.
2018	Revised ban policy issued by the Trump administration.
2019	Supreme Court allows the 2018 ban to take effect while legal challenges continue.
2021	President Biden reverses the Trump administration's ban.
January 2025	President Trump reinstates the ban via executive order after his second inauguration.
May 6, 2025	Supreme Court grants a stay, allowing the reinstated ban to take effect while legal challenges continue.