The Trump administration this week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to enforce a ban on transgender troops serving in the military, while legal challenges to the ban move forward.
On April 24, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application with the high court, asking it to stay a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle in Washington state, blocking enforcement of the ban.
On March 27, Settle ruled in favor of several long-serving transgender military members who say the ban violates their constitutional right to be treated equally under the law, among other violations.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to stay Settle’s injunction while it considered the Trump administration’s appeal.
So on April 24, the Trump administration sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court. At a minimum, the administration’s filing said, the U.S. Supreme Court should limit Settle’s ruling to the eight individual plaintiffs who benefited from his ruling and stay the rest of his nationwide injunction.
Sauer’s 302-page filing also emphasizes that Settle shouldn’t have interfered with the operations of the U.S. military. Additionally, it alleges that trans servicemembers weaken the military, pose privacy issues and are too expensive to retain due to their health issues.
Moreover, Sauer’s filing asserts the administration’s policy doesn’t discriminate against trans individuals as a class and some trans servicemembers could be granted waivers to serve.
The U.S. Supreme Court gave attorneys representing the trans servicemembers until May 1 to file a response. A ruling by the high court is expected shortly after their brief is filed.
Trump purges trans servicemembers in January
In January, President Donald J. Trump revoked an executive order from former President Joe Biden allowing transgender servicemembers to serve openly.
Defense Secretary Peter B. Hegseth subsequently formulated a policy that critics say effectively purges all trans servicemembers from the U.S. Military.
Under Hegseth’s policy, an active-duty trans servicemember could obtain a waiver and continue to serve only if there is “a compelling governmental interest” in their retention and they have not had symptoms of gender dysphoria for 36 months, have never attempted to transition, and are willing to serve in their birth sex.
In his 65-page ruling blocking Trump’s ban, Settle noted that the military has permitted open service of trans servicemembers for the past four years “without any identified complaints about unit cohesion or readiness.”
The judge went on to write: “[T]he government falls well short of its burden to show that banning transgender service is substantially related to achieving unit cohesion, good order, or discipline.”
Moreover, Settle opined that the military ban is stigmatizing, unfair and discriminatory on the basis of sex and likely unconstitutional.
One of the plaintiffs who received a favorable ruling from Settle is U.S. Navy Cmdr. Emily “Hawking” Shilling, a 42-year-old woman who has served for more than 19 years, including 60 missions as a combat aviator in Iraq and Afghanistan. She has 1750 flight hours in high performance Navy jets and has earned three air medals, according to court records.
In a statement, Shilling said she welcomed the U.S. Supreme Court’s involvement in the case.
“This case is not about politics — it’s about the right of every qualified American to serve,” Shilling stated. “For nearly a decade, transgender troops have proven time and again that we are just as committed, courageous, and honorable as those we serve with.”
Trump’s 2025 ban is a more restrictive version of an anti-trans policy he instituted in his first term, which did allow some trans servicemembers who transitioned under the Obama administration to continue serving.
In January 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court let Trump’s less restrictive ban go into effect. Joe Biden rolled back Trump’s anti-trans restrictions when he was in office.
In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., issued an injunction similar to Settle’s injunction. But Reyes’ injunction has been stayed administratively by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit while it reviews the matter.