A federal judge blocked the policy, saying it raised constitutional issues.
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to halt a federal judge’s order preventing it from implementing a policy disqualifying for service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for that condition.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application on April 24, telling the court that the Department of Defense “rationally determined that service by individuals with gender dysphoria would undermine military effectiveness and lethality—consistent with similar, longstanding determinations for a wide range of other medical conditions.”
The administration’s request for emergency relief came after a separate order in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied another of the administration’s requests to block the lower court order.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, presiding in Tacoma, Washington, found in March that “all transgender service members are likely to suffer the irreparable harm of losing the military service career they have chosen, while otherwise qualified accession plaintiffs will lose the opportunity to serve.”
Settle said the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the executive order were likely to succeed in claiming that the administration’s policy violated the Constitution.
Sauer disputed this, stating in part that the individuals who sued “have no constitutionally protected interest in continued military service or the employment benefits that come with military service.” He also noted that the Supreme Court had blocked two injunctions on a similar policy from former Defense Secretary James Mattis.
At a minimum, Sauer said, the justices should limit the scope of the lower court’s injunction to just the parties before the court rather than its current, nationwide scope. The lawsuit was brought in February by servicemembers who identified as “transgender” in a court filing.
Sauer’s filing followed the Supreme Court’s decision to set oral argument over the administration’s request to halt three nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order. In recent years, district court judges have granted nationwide relief increasingly often, giving rise to significant controversy. Along with Sauer, congressional Republicans have raised questions about how the practice aligns with the authority granted to judges under federal law.
Early in his second administration, Trump signed Executive Order 14183, titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. Among other things, the order prohibited males from sharing “sleeping, changing, or bathing facilities designated for females” and vice versa. It also stated that establishing high standards for things such as troop readiness and cohesion was “inconsistent with medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.”
The executive order encountered a second block in Washington, where a federal judge similarly ruled that it ran afoul of the Constitution.
