In a major courtroom victory for the Trump Administration, particularly the Pete Hegseth-led Pentagon, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has issued a ruling allowing the administration to implement, for the time being, its ban of transgender troops from the US armed forces. This ruling vindicates the president after the lower courts tried blocking his agenda.

As background, the issue began when former President Joe Biden, in 2021, issued an executive order that allowed transgender troops to serve in the military. In a highly expected move, President Trump then revoked that executive order, doing so as soon as he was inaugurated on January 20.

He then proceeded to issue, on the same day, another executive order in which he required Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to ban “individuals with gender dysphoria,” meaning transgender individuals, from serving in the military. SecDef Hegseth did so on February 26, providing as justification that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

That, in turn, led to a suit from seven transgender members of the military, one transgender individual who wanted to join, and a related non-profit. The plaintiffs were supported by the district court, with U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle finding that the ban violated constitutional equal protection clauses and ordering an immediate halt of any implementation of the order.

The Trump Administration appealed, both wanting the order fully vindicated and wanting Judge Settle’s order to be frozen, which would mean the ban could proceed as it is fully litigated in the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected that request, and so it went to the Supreme Court, which allowed it.

SCOTUS did so in a short ruling in which it avoided justifying its decision but allowed the Trump Administration to move forward with the ban while the appellate process winds on, something that could and likely will mean the case eventually ends up back before the Supreme Court.

In its ruling, SCOTUS first provided, “The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 27, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, case No. 2:25-cv241, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.”

The court then ruled that if a writ of certiorari is granted, meaning if SCOTUS is petitioned to take up a final appeal and does so, then the stay of Judge Settle’s order will last until the court rules on the case. It provided, “Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

Concluding, the court noted, quite unsurprisingly, that the three farthest-left justices on the court disagreed with the ruling and would have allowed Judge Settle’s order to stand pending appeal. It said, “Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.”