The Supreme Court handed Pete Hegseth a clean victory on the transgender military ban last May.
Now a Democrat-appointed panel just undid it – for 28 specific troops who sued.
The DC Circuit ruled 2-1 Monday that Hegseth's policy was driven by animus, not military readiness, blocking the discharge of 28 active-duty transgender service members while the broader legal fight continues.
The Same Playbook From the Same Judges
This is not a surprise.
Two Democrat appointees – Obama's Judge Robert Wilkins and Clinton's Judge Judith Rogers – ran the exact same play Trump's opponents ran in 2017.
That year, a DC district court blocked the original transgender ban the moment Trump announced it.
Courts kept blocking it for nearly two years before the Supreme Court let it take effect in January 2019.
Biden reversed it the moment he took office.
Trump reinstated a stronger version – no exceptions for current service members – on day one of his second term, and the Supreme Court greenlit the Hegseth policy in May 2025 while litigation continued.
Hegseth set a 30-day deadline and posted on X: "After a SCOTUS victory for @POTUS, TRANS is out at the DOD."
Then two Democrat judges issued Monday's ruling and put 28 of those troops back in uniform.
What These Judges Actually Argued
Wilkins wrote that the Hegseth policy "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group" – not readiness, not cohesion, not military effectiveness.
He also noted that the government never defended Trump and Hegseth's characterizations of transgender service as incompatible with honesty, humility, and integrity.
Here's what that actually means.
The administration's legal team made a deliberate choice – they argued the ban on procedural and constitutional grounds rather than defend the underlying policy on its merits.
That's the DOJ's call to make, and it's a legitimate one.
https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/2061562710844731666?s=20
But it handed Wilkins the opening he needed to call it animus rather than policy.
The ruling only protects the 28 Talbott plaintiffs.
The Hegseth ban on new recruits is fully intact.
The Supreme Court's stay in the parallel Shilling case – the 9th Circuit challenge – is also untouched.
But the plaintiffs filed for class certification in April and have a hearing June 30, where they'll try to extend this ruling to every transgender service member in uniform.
The Circuit Split That Forces SCOTUS's Hand
Here's what the left isn't telling you about Monday's ruling.
The DC Circuit just created a direct conflict with the 9th Circuit's Shilling outcome.
In Shilling, the Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect with no explanation – meaning the nation's highest court looked at the same policy and said enforce it.
Now the DC Circuit has ruled the opposite.
https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2061569929422229886?s=20
When two federal circuits reach opposite conclusions on the same policy, the Supreme Court has to resolve it.
That resolution is coming.
And when it does, it won't be a 2-1 Democrat panel making the call.
It will be six conservative justices who already told you where they stand – they let this ban take effect in May 2025 without a single word of explanation.
The DC Circuit just handed Hegseth the clearest path yet to a final Supreme Court victory.
Two activist judges tried to undo what SCOTUS already approved – and in doing so, they built the exact legal mechanism that ends this for good.
Sources:
- Elizabeth Weibel, "Trump Administration Blocked from Removing over 20 Transgender Troops," Breitbart, June 1, 2026.
- Haley Chi-Sing and Breanne Deppisch, "Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Ruling, Allowing Trump Transgender Ban to Proceed," Fox News, May 6, 2025.
- Morgan Phillips, "Hegseth Orders Deadline for Trans Service Members to Leave Military," Fox News, May 9, 2025.
- Landon Mion, "Hegseth Suggests Judge Report to Military Bases After Ruling That Pentagon Must Allow Transgender Troops," Fox News, March 23, 2025.
- Chloe Cramer, "Supreme Court Allows Trump's Transgender Military Ban," Syracuse Law Review, May 2025.
