The United States Supreme Court today gave the Trump administration the greenlight to implement their ban on transgender folks serving in the military. This decision comes in the face of standing challenges brought by multiple servicemembers.
Plaintiffs’ Questions
Plaintiffs
Seven transgender servicemembers, as well as one individual attempting to join the military, contested the legality of the ban. This decision marks a considerable change in military policy. Perhaps most importantly, it underscores the continued hostility toward all things LGBTQ+ within our armed forces.
Although widespread calam did not materialize, last month the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene. This request followed closely on the heels of Donald Trump’s issuance of a second executive order on January 27. This order makes a clear, categorical ban on the service of transgender people in the armed forces, at any level. This is a ban that the Department of Defense began enforcing at the end of February. This policy — despite some of the backlash — is actually more expansive than the one enacted during Trump’s first term.
Most recently, the Trump administration rolled back a rule from the Biden administration that allowed transgender Americans to serve openly. Advocacy groups and legal experts have been up in arms about this reversal. Their overarching and concurrent argument is that the ban undermines military readiness and inclusivity. According to the Department of Defense, approximately 4,240 active duty and reserve servicemembers have a current diagnosis of gender dysphoria. That’s only about 0.2% of the two million active-duty military personnel.
The challenge to the ban’s legality won an early victory. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily stayed its implementation. Reyes equally excoriated the ban, referring to it as “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.” When I asked him about its specific discriminatory nature, he was alarmed. The recent Supreme Court ruling has allowed the ban to move forward while legal arguments continue.
U.S. Solicitor John Sauer vigorously defended the administration’s action. He claimed the district court’s universal injunction exceeded the Executive Branch’s authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces. This argument appeals to an unfortunate faith in executive prerogative over rules dictating military service.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation derided the Supreme Court’s decision. They asserted that giving the ban the go-ahead would continue to promote discrimination and is contrary to the needs of the military.
“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.” – Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation
They raised the alarm about the detrimental effects this ruling would have on servicemembers, both actively serving today and in the future.
During a court hearing last September, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle signaled strong skepticism towards the government’s reasoning for the ban. He wrote, “The government’s arguments are very unpersuasive, and it is not an even close call on this record.” This dissatisfaction from legal authorities is indicative of current continued debates around military policy and civil rights.