A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, determining that the U.S. military may lawfully exclude transgender Americans from serving — a decision that immediately reignited national debate over civil rights, military standards, and the limits of judicial deference. The 2–1 ruling, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, marks a significant victory for Hegseth and President Donald Trump, whose administration reinstated a ban on transgender service shortly after Trump returned to office in January 2025. The ban had been temporarily blocked earlier this year when U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued an injunction in March, describing the order in unusually sharp terms. But Tuesday’s appeals court decision reverses that block, allowing the ban to move forward as litigation continues.

Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao — both appointed to the bench during Trump’s first term — wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the administration’s policy was “likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests.” Their ruling leaned heavily on precedent granting wide latitude to the executive branch on matters involving military structure, personnel decisions, and national defense. They framed Hegseth’s policy as an extension of longstanding medical and readiness guidelines, noting that standards regarding gender dysphoria have fluctuated over the past decade depending on the administration in power.

“The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks,” Katsas and Rao wrote. “For decades, these requirements barred service by individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition associated with clinically significant distress. This bar was partially relaxed in 2016, revived in 2018, partially relaxed again in 2021, and revived again in 2025.” Their opinion characterized these shifts as evidence that the military has repeatedly reassessed the issue and therefore deserves judicial deference in making its determination.

Hegseth argued that excluding transgender servicemembers, and specifically those diagnosed with gender dysphoria, was necessary to maintain “combat readiness, unit cohesion, and cost control.” The court cited his reliance on research related to the 2016 and 2018 policy changes, as well as several studies examining the impact of transgender service on operational effectiveness. Although critics have long contested the validity of those studies, the judges emphasized that courts historically avoid second-guessing military leadership on specialized personnel matters. Even if the policy triggered heightened scrutiny, they wrote, “decades of precedent establish that the judiciary must tread carefully when asked to second-guess considered military judgments of the political branches.”

The ruling stems from President Trump’s executive order issued just one week after returning to the White House. That order reinstated a near-total ban on transgender Americans serving in the military. Its language was unusually direct, stating, “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.” Critics condemned the order as openly discriminatory, arguing that it relied on rhetoric rather than evidence and stigmatized an entire group without justification.

Judge Ana Reyes, who issued the injunction in March, used forceful language in her opinion, asserting that the executive order was “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.” Her ruling concluded that the plaintiffs challenging the ban were likely to succeed on the merits, prompting her to temporarily block enforcement. But the appeals court decisively disagreed, finding that Reyes “afforded insufficient deference” to Hegseth’s “considered judgment.” The majority portrayed her assessment as an improper attempt to substitute judicial reasoning for military decision-making.

Judge Patricia Millett dissented, arguing that the executive order and the policy built upon it were rooted in unconstitutional discrimination and lacked credible evidence to support claims that transgender service harms military capability. She wrote that the majority had allowed the government to “cloak overt bias in the language of military judgment” and warned that unchecked deference could enable future abuses under the guise of national security. Her dissent underscored the human impact of the ruling, pointing to veterans and active-duty personnel who had served honorably under previous policies that permitted open transgender service.

Outside the courtroom, the response was swift. Advocacy organizations condemned the decision as a devastating setback for transgender Americans who wish to serve their country, arguing that the ruling legitimizes discrimination and undermines years of progress. Military readiness experts noted that previous assessments from the Pentagon and independent research groups found no evidence that transgender service members compromise unit cohesion or combat performance. Supporters of the ban, meanwhile, praised the ruling as a victory for what they described as “military realism,” asserting that the armed forces must prioritize readiness above all else.

Politically, the appeals court’s decision marks a major win for the Trump administration, which has framed the ban as a restoration of “traditional military values.” The ruling may embolden the administration to pursue broader restrictions affecting LGBTQ+ Americans in federal institutions. Legal observers expect the case to advance toward the Supreme Court, which previously allowed the ban to remain in effect during earlier litigation. Whether the Court will now take up the case on its merits — or leave the appeals court ruling in place — remains uncertain, but Tuesday’s decision dramatically reshapes the legal landscape.

As the policy resumes enforcement, transgender troops and prospective recruits face renewed uncertainty. Many who came out openly under earlier administrations may now confront discharge or reassignment, depending on how the Pentagon implements the revived restrictions. The broader implications extend well beyond the military: the ruling signals a judiciary increasingly divided over the balance between civil rights protections and the judiciary’s willingness to defer to claims of military necessity.

For now, the appeals court ruling stands as one of the most consequential legal developments of Trump’s second term, setting the stage for a prolonged and deeply contentious battle over who is allowed to serve their country — and under what conditions.