WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to lift a nationwide injunction and allow enforcement of its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military while ongoing legal challenges play out.
The emergency application targets a ruling from U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Seattle, who blocked the policy in March, arguing it likely violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently declined the administration’s request to temporary halt the injunction’s enforcement.
The administration argues that the injunction overlooks the judiciary’s longstanding deference to military policy decisions. Citing the “Mattis policy,” officials maintain that the measure is not a blanket ban, but rather a medically based policy that disqualifies individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or those who have undergone gender transition. They add that exceptions may be granted on a case-by-case basis for roles deemed critical to “warfighting capabilities.” (RELATED: China Building Colossal ‘Beijing Military City’ To Dwarf Pentagon)
The Mattis policy, introduced in 2018, was named after then-Defense Secretary James Mattis. It framed restrictions on transgender service as a readiness issue, recommending limits for those experiencing gender dysphoria while allowing service under certain conditions for others.
As Fox News reports:
“Absent a stay, the district court’s universal injunction will remain in place for the duration of further review in the Ninth Circuit and in this Court – a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests,” lawyers for the Trump administration argued.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding “trans-identifying medical standards for military service” and to “rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness.”
Critics, however, argue the administration’s stance is driven more by politics than by operational necessity. The Department of Justice insists the policy focuses on “medical readiness,” not identity. (RELATED: Congressman Faces Backlash, Possible Primary Over Transgender Sports Comments)
The ongoing case builds on legal precedent set in Trump v. Karnoski, a 2019 Supreme Court decision in which the justices narrowly allowed a version of the transgender military ban to take effect in a 5–4 ruling. However, that earlier policy — a partial rollback of Obama-era guidelines — was more limited in scope, targeting specific aspects of gender transition while allowing some transgender individuals to serve under certain conditions.
What’s currently being litigated is far broader. The Court’s decision on whether to permit enforcement will set a precedent for how far executive authority can extend in defining military eligibility criteria.
READ NEXT: Poll Uncovers Alarming Values Divide In Gen Z And Millennials
Constitution‘s equal protection clause should not apply to Military troops when strength and stamina are a factor, especially in combat situations, because it is paramount that military troops be totally fit for the hardships and deprivation of combat and battlefield situations.
The Military is NOT the private sector and should not be judged by the same standards. It is imperative that the military be well trained and fit at all times to meet any threat to the country.