D.C. Appeals Panel Says Trump Transgender Troop Ban Likely Unconstitutional, Limits Relief To Current Plaintiffs
On Monday, June 1, 2026, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration's transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional.[1]
Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins formed the majority while Judge Justin Walker wrote the lone dissent.[1] Wilkins wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's February 2025 policy was pretextual and appeared premised on a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender." MS NOW
In February 2025 the Defense Department adopted a policy that disqualified from service anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria regardless of timing or current symptoms.[1] Trump's January 2025 executive order said transgender service members' sexual identity "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle" and harms readiness.[2]
The panel left a preliminary injunction blocking removal of currently serving transgender plaintiffs in place but allowed accessions restrictions to be enforced against transgender would-be recruits who are plaintiffs.[1] Rogers joined the majority opinion but filed a partial dissent that added nuance, and Walker argued courts should defer to Congress and the commander in chief on military exclusions.[2] Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, the ban remains in effect for now because the Supreme Court earlier allowed enforcement and the appeals court stayed parts of its own ruling to permit further appeals; a separate Washington state case also recently produced a ruling for plaintiffs challenging the Pentagon policy.[1]
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📌 Key Facts
- On Monday, June 1, 2026, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2–1 that the Trump administration's transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional and was driven in part by animus.
- The panel's alignment split with Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins forming the majority while Judge Justin Walker authored the lone dissent; Rogers joined the majority but also filed a partial dissent adding nuance to the court's positions.
- In his opinion, Judge Robert Wilkins' majority opinion said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy was pretextual and appeared driven by a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender.”
- The panel left a preliminary injunction in place that blocks removal of currently serving transgender plaintiffs but allowed enforcement of accessions restrictions against transgender would-be recruits who are plaintiffs.
- The opinion criticizes the February 2025 Defense Department policy for disqualifying from service any person diagnosed with gender dysphoria regardless of timing or current symptoms, calling that classification unreasonable and not evenhanded.
- Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, the ban remains in effect for now because the Supreme Court previously allowed the policy to be enforced in separate Tacoma litigation and the appeals court stayed parts of its ruling to permit further appeals.
- Reporting on the case quotes Trump's January 2025 executive order asserting that transgender service members' sexual identity “conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle” and is harmful to readiness.
- The coverage notes a parallel lawsuit in Washington state that also produced a ruling in favor of plaintiffs challenging the Pentagon policy.
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- On Monday, June 1, 2026, a divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled that the Pentagon policy implementing President Trump's transgender troop ban illegally excludes people based on gender identity.
- The panel held that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy presumptively disqualifying people with gender dysphoria appears driven by a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender," in Judge Robert Wilkins' majority opinion.
- The decision leaves the ban in effect for now because the Supreme Court previously allowed it to proceed and the appeals court stayed its own ruling to permit further appeals.
- The panel's narrowed injunction applies only to the plaintiffs who are currently serving in the military and does not protect transgender individuals who are seeking to enlist.
- The article quotes language from Trump's January 2025 executive order asserting that transgender service members' sexual identity "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle" and is harmful to readiness.
- Judge Justin Walker dissented, arguing that decisions about excluding the plaintiffs from the military rest with Congress and the Commander in Chief, not the courts.
- Judge Judith Rogers joined the majority but also filed a partial dissent, adding nuance to the panel's alignment.
- The article notes a parallel lawsuit in Washington state that also produced a ruling in favor of plaintiffs challenging the policy.
- On Monday, June 1, 2026, a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the Trump administration's transgender military ban is likely unconstitutional and was driven in part by animus.
- Judges Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins formed the majority; Judge Justin Walker dissented and authored the lone dissenting opinion.
- The panel left in place a preliminary injunction blocking removal of currently serving transgender plaintiffs but allowed enforcement of accessions restrictions against transgender would-be recruits who are plaintiffs.
- Judge Wilkins wrote that the government's justification based on gender dysphoria was pretextual and that the Hegseth Policy was premised at least in part on a non-legitimate interest in harming a politically unpopular group.
- The opinion highlights that the February 2025 Defense Department policy disqualifies from service any person diagnosed with gender dysphoria, regardless of timing or current symptoms, and criticizes that classification as not reasonable or evenhanded.
- The article recalls that an earlier D.C. Circuit panel had stayed District Judge Ana Reyes's broader March 2025 injunction while the merits were considered, and that the Supreme Court in May 2025 allowed the policy to be enforced during separate Tacoma litigation.
- The ruling distinguishes between active-duty plaintiffs and those seeking to enlist, maintaining protection only for the former at this stage.