Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Transgender Military Ban Unconstitutional in Major Setback for Pete Hegseth

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration's ban on transgender people serving in the US military is likely unconstitutional for current service members, delivering a significant setback to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its split 2-1 decision on Monday, upholding a lower court injunction that prevents the removal of transgender troops already serving while allowing the ban on new recruits to stand.

Court Rules Hegseth Policy Unconstitutional for Serving Troops

Judge Robert Wilkins as reported by ABC News, authored the majority opinion concluding that the policy known as the Hegseth Policy was driven by animus. The opinion determined the policy violated the constitutional right to equal protection, describing it as motivated by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

The ruling stems from an executive order signed by President Trump on 27 January 2025, which declared transgender individuals unfit for military service. Defence Secretary Hegseth implemented the policy in February 2025, disqualifying those with a history of gender dysphoria or transition-related treatments from retention or accession, subject to limited waivers.

The court found the government's claim that the ban was solely about mental health conditions to be pretextual, as it singled out transgender people in a way not applied to other diagnoses as reported in a Politico article. Transgender rights groups hailed the decision as a key protection for serving personnel.

Split Verdict Allows Ban on New Enlistees to Proceed

The panel was divided on the scope of relief. While affirming the injunction for current troops, the court vacated it for those seeking to enlist, citing concerns over nationwide injunctions raised by the Supreme Court in recent cases.

Dissenting Judge Justin Walker urged deference to the military's assessment of readiness and unit cohesion. Court records indicated that prior studies had shown transgender service had a negligible impact on military effectiveness. The decision narrows the injunction to the named plaintiffs, reflecting a cautious approach to judicial remedies.

This outcome represents a partial win for the plaintiffs in the case, Talbott v United States, who argued the policy discriminated on the basis of gender identity. It comes amid broader legal challenges to the administration's approach to transgender issues across federal policy areas.

Hegseth Signals Appeal to Supreme Court

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, posting on social media the terse message 'See you at SCOTUS'. The statement, shared widely including in a verified Instagram post by Fox News, indicates the administration plans to seek Supreme Court review of the ruling.

As of 3 June 2026, the Pentagon has not issued a formal comment on the decision, but the legal battle appears headed for further escalation. The case highlights the continuing friction between the executive branch and the judiciary over military personnel policies. Legal observers expect the Supreme Court to have the final say, potentially clarifying the level of scrutiny applied to such classifications.

The ruling adds to a series of court interventions in the Trump transgender military ban debate, which first gained prominence during Mr Trump's first term. The decision has sparked debate on military readiness and constitutional rights, drawing responses from advocacy groups on both sides of the issue.