Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump Transgender Military Ban for Named Plaintiffs
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled Monday that the Trump administration’s policy barring transgender individuals from military service appears to violate constitutional equal protection guarantees, allowing a specific group of active-duty plaintiffs to remain in uniform while the broader legal fight continues.
The Ruling
A two-judge majority on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction in the case Talbott et al v. Trump. Judges Judith W. Rogers and Robert L. Wilkins sided with the plaintiffs; Judge Justin R. Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented.
Writing for the majority, Judge Wilkins — appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014 — concluded the policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” He found it both arbitrary and grounded in animus, rendering it constitutionally infirm at this stage of proceedings.
Judge Rogers was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
In his dissent, Walker argued that Supreme Court precedent gives the military broad authority to restrict rights that would otherwise be protected for civilians. “Because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals,” Walker wrote, he could not join the majority’s intervention into military personnel policy.
Scope and Limits of the Decision
The ruling is a preliminary injunction, meaning it preserves the status quo while litigation proceeds — it does not permanently settle the question. Critically, the injunction applies only to the named plaintiffs in the case, not to transgender service members broadly.
Individuals seeking to enlist — as opposed to those already serving — are not covered by the ruling. Thousands of other transgender troops remain subject to administrative review and potential involuntary separation under the policy.
The ban originated in an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 and was implemented by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The Pentagon and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
Voices From Both Sides
Jennifer Levi, senior director of GLAD Law and lead attorney for the eight original military plaintiffs, called the decision “an enormous victory,” saying in public remarks that the ruling recognizes those “capable of serving should be able to continue.”
Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride and an 18-year Army veteran, welcomed the relief for named plaintiffs but cautioned that the decision leaves the wider community in a precarious position. “Thousands of service members remain subject to ongoing administrative actions, involuntary separation processes, and significant uncertainty,” she said.
Corcoran herself is awaiting a military determination on whether she will be permitted to retire rather than face separation due to her transgender status. She noted the government could still seek an emergency stay of Monday’s ruling, as it has done in at least one related case.
Where This Fits in the Broader Legal Landscape
The D.C. Circuit ruling is the second appellate decision to side with transgender service members on similar grounds. In April 2025, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court order in a separate case, Shilling et al v. Trump, allowing transgender troops to continue serving and rejecting the government’s appeal in that circuit.
However, in May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to take effect nationally while legal challenges continue — a significant procedural setback for plaintiffs across all pending cases. That high-court decision casts uncertainty over how far the lower appellate rulings can ultimately reach. A future Supreme Court merits ruling could override both circuit court decisions.
Corcoran noted that two separate appellate courts have now signaled to the Supreme Court that affected service members face “irreparable harm” and that the policy constitutes discrimination — a record that attorneys for the plaintiffs may use to press for broader relief.
As federal courts continue working through competing rulings on the policy, the status of transgender personnel across all branches of the military remains unresolved. The cases are expected to generate additional appeals and potentially further Supreme Court review. For related coverage of federal government actions, see our report on Trump signing a government funding bill after three shutdowns.