Reading Time: 3 minutes
A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration from removing trans-identified service members from active duty while a legal challenge to the policy moves forward.
Connect with others in your state in prayer.
In an opinion published Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court ruling preventing the Trump administration from removing trans-identified service members from active duty.
The appellate court, however, vacated a ruling concluding that the Trump administration’s refusal to enlist new trans-identified service members was unconstitutional.
Judge Robert Wilkins, appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, authored the majority opinion.
On Jan. 27, 2025, a week after his second term began, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” The executive order also stated that “Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” the order added.
The following month, the U.S. Department of Defense implemented a policy announcing that “Service members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria will be processed for separation from military service.”
A group of currently-serving trans-identified service members and prospective service members challenged the administration in court, alleging that the new policies violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They contend “the Hegseth Policy is not based on any legitimate governmental purpose, instead ‘reflect[ing] animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status.’”
Wilkins agreed with the enlisted plaintiffs, writing that “the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus, and for those reasons the Policy violates Plaintiff-Appellees’ constitutional right to equal protection of the law.”
“Appellants have not shown how a preliminary injunction preventing them from removing current servicemembers will harm national security,” the judge wrote.
“Appellants have not contested that all of the currently serving Plaintiff-Appellees, who dedicated a combined 130 years to military service and collectively earned more than 80 commendations, have served honorably and met all military standards during their service. Appellants have thus forfeited any argument that, for purposes of the balance of equities analysis, retaining these servicemembers will harm national security.”
The court did not side with the trans-identified prospective service members.
“While Plaintiff-Appellees who seek admission to the military have been deprived of constitutional freedoms, the harms and equities of their situations are not identical to those of persons already serving,” Wilkins wrote.
He maintained that “Plaintiff-Appellees seeking admission to the military can still obtain full relief later, following a final adjudication on the merits.”
Wilkins was joined by Judge Judith Rogers, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, in his ruling determining that the removal of trans-identified troops from active duty was unconstitutional. Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker agreed with Wilkins that preventing trans-identified individuals from joining the military was not unconstitutional, while Rogers disagreed.
In his dissenting opinion, Walker characterized the majority opinion as a violation of “the longstanding tradition of deference to military decisionmaking” by the judicial branch.
“The military is a distinct constitutional system, separate from civilian society,” Walker stressed. “Its rules are necessarily different than those of civilian society,” and therefore, “courts do not apply the same standards to military rules as they do to the rules of civilian society.”
“Only the Executive and Congress are responsible for system-wide military judgments about the composition of the armed forces. The Supreme Court has never assumed that role for itself. Neither has the D.C. Circuit. Not until today,” he concluded.
Pray for America’s military and its leaders as legal battles over military standards continue.
This article was originally published at The Christian Post. Photo Credit: Canva Teams.
