The Supreme Court Just Let Trump’s Ban on Transgender Military Service Move Forward

The final decision awaits further action by the lower courts.

Sipa/AP Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Supreme Court permitted the Trump administration’s ban on transgender members of the armed services to move forward. In a 5-4 ruling Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court allowed the government to proceed with the controversial directive while the court considers whether it will formally review its legality. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor voted against the decision.

The ban has been a source of confusion since President Donald Trump tweeted the surprising announcement six months after taking office, blindsiding Pentagon press officials and inciting outrage from advocates of LGBTQ rights. Trump’s initial order barred transgender people from serving “in any capacity in the U.S. military,” but Defense Department officials ended up allowing for several exceptions, including for hundreds of trans service members already serving openly.

“DoD’s proposed policy is NOT a ban on service by transgender persons,” Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell told Mother Jones in a statement after Tuesday’s ruling. “DoD’s proposed policy is based on professional military judgment and will ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world.”

She added, “We will continue to work with the Department of Justice regarding next steps in the pending lawsuits.”

Lambda Legal Counsel Peter Renn called the Supreme Court’s decision “perplexing to say the least” in an interview with the Washington Post. “For more than 30 months, transgender troops have been serving our country openly with valor and distinction, but now the rug has been ripped out from under them, once again,” he said.

Since its formal unveiling, the Trump administration’s policy has been mired in federal litigation. The district court in Washington, DC, had initially blocked the administration from moving forward with the policy change, citing the likelihood of its reversal on discrimination grounds. That order was vacated by the DC appellate court in January, which handed the White House a “provisional victory,” the New York Times reported, but kept the order in legal limbo.

A different federal case in Maryland, which concerns Trump’s original full ban—not the refined version set into motion by the Pentagon—also resulted in a preliminary injunction, which the Pentagon said will block implementation of the order for now. The ACLU, which helped litigate the case in Maryland against the government, reiterated on Twitter that the nationwide block from their case remains in place. “Our case and the injunction we won are NOT impacted,” the group stated.

The Supreme Court’s decision only applied to injunctions issued by judges in Washington state and California, which still need to be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Once the Ninth Circuit hands down a decision, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to weigh in again.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate