A divided D.C. Circuit panel found the Pentagon's transgender service ban likely unconstitutional, affirming discharge protections for active-duty plaintiffs and signaling a SCOTUS clash.
A divided D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 on June 1, 2026, that the Defense Department's policy barring transgender individuals from military service was likely driven by unconstitutional animus and violates the equal protection guarantee [1]. The majority affirmed a district court's preliminary injunction blocking the active-duty discharge of plaintiff service members while the litigation proceeds [2]. The ruling marks the highest appellate holding to date squarely finding the Hegseth-era transgender ban constitutionally infirm [3].
The case, *Talbott v. United States*, reached the D.C. Circuit on the government's interlocutory appeal of a lower court's preliminary injunction [1]. Judges Robert Wilkins and Judith Rogers formed the majority; Judge Justin Walker dissented [2]. The plaintiffs are represented by GLAD Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, and the respondent is the Department of Defense under Secretary Pete Hegseth [3]. The appeal was argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington [1].
The majority's equal-protection analysis focused on whether the ban reflected a legitimate government interest or constituted animus toward a protected class [2]. The panel affirmed the injunction as it applied to currently serving transgender plaintiffs but narrowed its scope, declining to extend the bar to cover prospective recruits who are not parties to the suit [1]. That narrowing limits the injunction's practical reach while preserving the constitutional holding at its core [3]. Judge Walker's dissent argued the majority gave insufficient weight to the traditional judicial deference afforded to military personnel decisions made by the executive branch [2].
Hegseth signaled immediately after the ruling that the government would seek Supreme Court review, raising the prospect of an emergency application to the justices before the end of the summer term [1]. The government could pursue either a direct certiorari petition or an emergency application to the full Court asking it to stay the injunction pending appeal [3]. Given that the Supreme Court previously allowed an earlier iteration of a transgender military ban to take effect while litigation continued in 2019, the government will almost certainly cite that history in any stay application [2]. The D.C. Circuit's decision deepens a circuit-level record on this issue and increases pressure on the Court to resolve the constitutional question definitively [3].