DOJ says it will ask U.S. Supreme Court to undo block on Trump’s transgender military ban

The Trump administration told a federal appeals court Thursday that it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a ruling protecting transgender service members from President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s military ban.

In a motion filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department attorneys asked the court to keep that ruling from taking effect while the administration prepares its appeal to the Supreme Court.

The government said it expects to file its petition by August 30 and does not plan to seek an extension. The transgender service members challenging the policy oppose the request, DOJ attorneys noted.

The timing was especially consequential. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling was scheduled to take effect Thursday, the same day the Justice Department filed its request to stop the mandate. Transgender troops had been preparing for the possibility that the court’s protection would finally allow them to return to their duties after months of uncertainty. Instead, the government moved at the last moment to keep that relief from taking effect while it prepares its Supreme Court petition.

Related: Federal appeals court rules that Trump’s trans military ban appears discriminatory

In June, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled that the administration should not be allowed to discharge the transgender service members who brought the lawsuit while their case continues in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The appeals court did not provide the same protection to transgender people seeking to enlist.

That decision involved a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order intended to prevent harm while a lawsuit is still pending. It was not the final ruling on whether the military policy is constitutional.

The appeals court has issued its decision, but it has not yet taken the final procedural step that makes the ruling effective. That step is known as issuing the mandate. The Justice Department is asking the court to hold that instruction back. If the request is granted, the administration could continue enforcing the policy against the transgender troops who sued, even though the appeals court found that they were likely to win their constitutional challenge.

Related: Trump DOJ lied to D.C. federal appeals court about trans military ban, lawyers say in stunning filing

If the request is denied, the appeals court’s protection for those service members could take effect. The administration could then ask the Supreme Court itself to block the ruling on an emergency basis.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Advocate that while the request is not unusual, the fact that the government claims that trans troops who are waiting aren't being harmed is offensive.

“We will oppose this request to stay the mandate,” Minter said. “It is particularly egregious that the administration is denying that the ban will cause our plaintiffs irreparable harm.”

The administration’s policy disqualifies people from military service if they have a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, have received gender-affirming hormone therapy, or have undergone transition-related procedures.

The policy includes a waiver process, but its requirements are so restrictive that most transgender people would not qualify. Applicants generally must show that they have never attempted to transition and are willing to serve according to standards associated with their sex assigned at birth.

Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in June that the policy could exclude someone because they experienced gender dysphoria years earlier or because they socially transitioned by changing their clothing or pronouns. He said the government had not shown a legitimate military reason for treating those people as unfit to serve.

The Justice Department is now arguing that the Supreme Court is likely to take the case, because the justices have already allowed the same military policy to remain in effect in a separate lawsuit.

In that case, Shilling v. United States, a federal judge in Washington state had blocked the policy nationwide. In May 2025, the Supreme Court paused that order, allowing the Pentagon to enforce the ban while the case moved through the courts.

The Supreme Court’s order in Shilling did not decide whether the policy is constitutional. It decided only that the administration could enforce it while the courts considered that question.

Related: Transgender troops just won a major ruling in their fight against Trump’s military ban

The government now says the same logic should apply in Talbott. Because the Supreme Court previously allowed the policy to remain in effect during the Shilling case, Justice Department attorneys argue that the D.C. Circuit should not allow the Talbott plaintiffs' protections to take effect now.

The administration is also relying on the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision allowing Idaho and West Virginia to bar transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s school sports. The Justice Department argues that the sports ruling supports the military policy because the Supreme Court said a law may be constitutional if it is broadly connected to a legitimate government goal, even if it may not make sense in every individual case.

But the sports decision repeatedly emphasized that it concerned athletics, where courts have traditionally accepted sex-based divisions. Minter has argued that the ruling did not create a general rule permitting discrimination against transgender people in employment, education or other parts of public life.

Related: Trump Justice Department asks Supreme Court to reinstate trans military ban blocked by courts

The filing comes as the broader Talbott lawsuit continues in a federal trial court.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who has already ruled that she believes the ban is based on demonstrated government animus toward trans people, has certified the case as a class action, meaning a final ruling could apply not only to the original plaintiffs but also to a larger group of transgender service members and prospective recruits. A trial is scheduled to begin January 4, 2027.