Background
Following Executive Order one thousand four hundred eighteen three issued in January two thousand twenty-five, the Department of Defense implemented the Hegseth Policy, which disqualified individuals with a history of gender dysphoria from military service. The policy characterized transgender identity as inconsistent with military standards of honesty and integrity. Plaintiff-appellees, including current service members and applicants, challenged the policy in the District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing it violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding the policy was soaked in animus and lacked a legitimate governmental purpose.
The court’s reasoning
Circuit Judge Wilkins, writing for the judgment, concluded that the Hegseth Policy was arbitrary and based upon animus toward a politically unpopular group. The court noted that the government failed to provide a factual basis for disparaging characterizations of transgender citizens. While the court granted great deference to military judgments, it held that a bare desire to harm a group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest. The court distinguished between current service members and applicants, finding the equities strongly favored protecting those already serving honorably. However, for applicants seeking accession, the court determined the District Court must carefully consider the implications of compelling admission based on a preliminary ruling that could be revisited after a full trial.
The dissent
What it means going forward
Current transgender service members are protected from expulsion under the Hegseth Policy. However, the policy remains in effect for new applicants seeking to enlist, as the preliminary injunction barring their exclusion was vacated pending further proceedings.