A rare court win sets the stage for transformation.
In a significant win for Donald Trump’s administration, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit threw out an injunction issued by US District Judge Ana Reyes that had blocked the Department of War from enforcing a ban on transgenders in the military. The 2-1 decision from the three-judge panel is a victory for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.
The embattled Pentagon chief has been vocal about his determination to rid the US armed forces of “woke” ideology, DEI, and personnel suffering from gender dysphoria, a condition very much at the center of a surge in the number of people identifying as transgender.
This isn’t necessarily the end of the matter. The full DC Court of Appeals could agree to a request for an en banc hearing. The US Supreme Court in May upheld the ban on transgenders in the military while litigation proceeded through the lower courts. This decision came about because of the Trump administration’s appeal of multiple lower court injunctions after the president signed an executive order initiating the removal of service members choosing to deny their biological sex.
Transgenders in the Military Versus ‘Strict Medical Standards’
The DC judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Trump, wrote in their majority opinion that the administration’s position was “likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests.” The judges added, “The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection,” observing that “decades of precedent establish that the judiciary must tread carefully when asked to second-guess considered military judgments of the political branches.”
The judges also noted that the military’s policy in such matters hasn’t been rigidly defined, and that it has been changed by previous administrations:
“The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks. 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.”
The two judges also accused Reyes of, essentially, disrespecting Hegseth, saying that her efforts to prevent the ban from being enforced “failed to grant the secretary sufficient deference.”
It is unfortunately so often the case in litigation involving Trump administration policies that left-leaning judges appear to rely as much on emotional arguments as they do on legal ones. The dissenting DC judge, Obama appointee Cornelia Pillard, accused the Trump administration of basing its transgender ban on “denigration and vitriol.” She argued that all evidence points to transgender identity not being incompatible with military readiness and cohesion. Judge Pillard further accused the Department of War of “blatant animus” toward transgenders in the military.
Activist Judge
Back in February of this year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Reyes, whose injunction the DC Court of Appeals struck down. The DOJ accused Reyes of demonstrating bias during hearings on the War Department’s transgender ban. Reyes “engaged in hostile and egregious misconduct,” the DOJ claimed, citing the judge’s use of coarse language and her questioning a DOJ lawyer about religion.
The complaint was dismissed in September by Chief US Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, who wrote that the Justice Department could have requested that Reyes recuse herself and that judicial misconduct proceedings were not the appropriate venue in this case.
It seems the Supreme Court will at some future point be revisiting the question of a ban on transgenders in the military – and the Trump administration will finally be able to put this matter behind it. For now, though, Secretary Hegseth is free to move forward with his mission to bring the armed services back to a state of warfighting readiness, unburdened by ideologically driven hindrances and damaging distractions.
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.
