A federal appeals court dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration’s military policy Monday, ruling that the Pentagon’s ban on transgender troops violates constitutional rights. The decision upholds a lower court injunction that has kept the policy from taking full effect.

Court Sides With Biden-Appointed Judge

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a 2-1 ruling that largely affirmed a March 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes. The Biden-appointed judge had previously concluded that President Donald Trump’s executive order excluding transgender individuals from military service likely violated their constitutional protections. The appeals panel narrowed the injunction to apply only to the eight plaintiffs currently serving in the military, not those seeking to join.

The case originated from President Trump’s January 2025 executive orders titled Restoring America’s Fighting Force and Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. These directives mandated that every branch of the U.S. military operate without preferences based on race or sex, and eliminated gender-related accommodations and pronoun usage requirements. Six active-duty transgender service members and two individuals seeking to enlist filed suit challenging the policy.

Contentious Court Proceedings

Judge Reyes issued a temporary nationwide injunction blocking the transgender military ban last March. During subsequent proceedings, when Trump administration lawyers asked her to dissolve the preliminary injunction, the judge questioned Department of Justice attorneys about military spending on Viagra compared to gender dysphoria treatment. Legal observers noted her apparent predetermined position on the case before issuing her ruling.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized Judge Reyes in a widely circulated social media post last year. He sarcastically suggested that since the judge positioned herself as a military planner, she should report to Fort Benning at six in the morning to instruct Army Rangers on high-value target raids, then proceed to Fort Bragg to train Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare.

Constitutional Questions Remain

The Trump administration maintains that military readiness and unit cohesion drive their policy decisions, not discrimination. Administration officials argue that the executive orders aim to ensure the armed forces prioritize combat effectiveness and operational standards. The split decision, with one judge dissenting, indicates ongoing legal debate over the balance between individual rights and military personnel policies. The case may proceed to further appeals, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.