Transgender servicemembers urge the justices to allow them to continue serving
The Supreme Court heard arguments from a group of transgender servicemembers on Thursday. They urged the court to uphold an order from a federal judge, which bars the government from enforcing the policy that would prevent them from serving in U.S. Military. The Trump administration asked the justices last week to suspend the order while the service members’ legal challenge to the policy proceeds in lower courts. The order, the administration said, had usurped “the executive branch’s authority to determine who can serve in the nation’s armed services.” Seven of the eight plaintiffs are members of the military and have served for more than 100 years. They also received more than 70 awards. The eighth individual plaintiff is interested in joining the military. The lead plaintiff, Commander Emily Shilling is a naval aviator with more than 60 combat missions under her belt and a former naval test pilot. She claims that the Navy spent more than 20 million dollars on her training during her nearly two decades in service. The plaintiffs claim that the policy violates the Constitution’s guarantee for equal protection, among other things. Senior U.S. district judge Benjamin Settle, appointed by George W. Bush, agreed with plaintiffs and prohibited the government from enforcing the policy anywhere in the United States. The Trump administration took the case to the Supreme Court in April after the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, refused to pause Settle’s order until the government appealed. The plaintiffs reject the policy’s premise. They maintain that “equal service” by openly transgender members of the military has improved the readiness, lethality and unit cohesion of our Armed Forces, while removing transgender members from the Armed Forces will harm all three as well as the fiscal health. The policy allowed active duty service members who were already transitioning to remain in the military and retain their healthcare. They argue that the earlier policy “lacked the animus laden language” of both the 2025 policy as well as the executive order which led to it. This policy “dismissed transgender individuals as inherently untruthful and undisciplined; dishonorable and selfish; and incapable of meeting rigorous standards of military service.” However, since then transgender persons have served openly within the military without any negative impact on military readiness or deadlyness. The plaintiffs reject the government’s claim that the ban is only for people with gender dysphoria and not transgender people. They call this argument “folly”. The Trump administration will have the opportunity to respond to the plaintiffs brief. After that, the government could make a decision at any time.
Posted in Emergency appeals and applications
Cases: United States v. Shilling
Recommended Citation:
Amy Howe
Transgender servicemembers urge the justices to allow them to continue serving.
SCOTUSblog
(May. 1, 2025, 5:35 PM),
