Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to let transgender troop discharges proceed

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that stops the Pentagon from discharging transgender troops who are already in uniform. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a June ruling by a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was “gravely erroneous” and amounted to an “unprecedented intervention into military affairs.”

The petition covers a lawsuit brought by 28 service members, led by Army Reserve Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott. A trial on the merits is set for January 2027. The administration wants the discharges to start now, before that trial. Lawyers for the troops asked the court the same day to leave the injunction in place until evidence is heard.

The policy began in the first days of the second Trump term. An executive order directed Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to bar “individuals with gender dysphoria” from service and described transgender identity as a falsehood that conflicted with military life. District Judge Ana Reyes issued an injunction. On 1 June 2026 the D.C. Circuit left part of that order standing and held that the government could not enforce the ban against people already serving. The panel said the policy likely denied equal protection because it reflected animus. Sauer wants that sentence reversed.

Two tracks at the court

This is not the first time the justices have seen the ban. In May the court's conservative majority, in a separate case, allowed the administration to dismiss some troops while litigation continued. Friday's petition asks for a broader ruling: that the Constitution does not stop the military from deciding who may serve, and that judges should defer to that judgement. Sauer called the question “exceptional and recurring.” A parallel challenge is still pending in the Ninth Circuit.

White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales issued a statement that put the case in campaign language, crediting the president with restoring readiness and attacking the Biden-era policy. GLAD Law, which represents service members, said the administration is asking the court to step in before trial so that discharges can begin at once. The 28 plaintiffs, their lawyers say, remain technically in the military and on leave.

What the court can do this autumn

The justices can deny review and leave the D.C. Circuit injunction in force until 2027. They can take the case and hear it in the term that opens in October. They can also act on an emergency application to lift the injunction without a full merits decision. Sauer's filing, described in press accounts as running to hundreds of pages with the appendix, is written to support all three paths, with the emphasis on deference to “considered military judgment” about effectiveness.

The legal fight is old. The first Trump administration imposed a ban, the Biden administration reversed it, the second Trump administration imposed it again. Each turn produced a new set of named plaintiffs and a new injunction. What is new on Friday is the request to treat the D.C. Circuit's animus finding as the error that the Supreme Court must correct before a trial record exists.

Until the court acts, the 28 remain where the June order left them: in uniform, off the line, waiting on a petition that now sits in the building across First Street from the Capitol.