Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the government’s motion to stay pending appeal a preliminary injunction against the 2025 Department of Defense policy concerning military service by individuals with gender dysphoria. The court concluded that the policy likely survives equal-protection review, emphasizing deference to the considered judgments of the political branches and military authorities regarding readiness, unit cohesion, and related interests. Judge Katsas, joined by Judge Rao, issued a concurring statement, while Judge Pillard dissented.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government satisfied the requirements for a stay pending appeal of the district court's preliminary injunction.
- Whether the Hegseth Policy was likely to violate equal-protection principles by discriminating based on sex or transgender status.
- Whether the Hegseth Policy was likely invalid because it was motivated by animus toward transgender individuals.
- Whether the district court's universal injunction was impermissibly broad.
Holdings
- The government satisfied the requirements for a stay pending appeal, and the preliminary injunction was stayed while the appeal proceeded.
- The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal-protection principles because it classifies based on the medical condition of gender dysphoria and, alternatively, is supported by considered military judgments and legitimate military interests under deferential military review.
- The animus cases did not support invalidating the Hegseth Policy at the preliminary-injunction stage because the policy advanced legitimate military interests and was not inexplicable by anything other than a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.
- The district court independently erred by universally enjoining the Hegseth Policy rather than limiting relief to as-applied relief for the plaintiffs.
Key quotations
“The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection.” (at 10)
“Our review of constitutional challenges to military rules thus “is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society.”” (at 12)
“For these reasons, we grant the stay pending appeal.” (at 24)
Factual background
The Department of Defense's 2025 Hegseth Policy generally disqualifies individuals with a diagnosis, history, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria from military service, subject to limited waiver provisions. The policy was supported by prior Defense Department policies and reports, a 2021 accession-standards study, a 2025 literature review, and cost data concerning treatment of gender dysphoria. Plaintiffs are transgender individuals with gender dysphoria diagnoses, most of whom are active-duty service members, and they challenged the policy as violating equal-protection principles incorporated into the Fifth Amendment.
Procedural history
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the Hegseth Policy, concluding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on equal-protection claims and that the policy was alternatively motivated by animus. The government appealed and sought a stay. While the motion was pending, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction against the same policy in another case. The D.C. Circuit granted the stay pending appeal and stated that the district court's universal injunction also raised a separate scope-of-relief problem under Trump v. CASA, Inc.