You Probably Seen This Already, But...

What I want to point out is what the judges said...

Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, appeals court panel rules

AP News

By  MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and LINDSAY WHITEHURST

June 1, 2026

A Pentagon policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday in another legal setback for President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.

The majority opinion — by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit — held that the Trump administration’s policy was designed to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to start enforcing it last year, as litigation continues to plays out.

The panel’s new ruling would keep the military from kicking out current service members named in the lawsuit, but wouldn’t allow new transgender recruits to join. The judges put their decision on hold, though, to let the administration seek further review.

So, this is a double-edged sword... yes, the court ruled it is discriminatory, but the military can keep on discriminating against us for now.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama.

That was what caught my attention: "driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group." The judge absolutely nailed it!

The Advocate writes;

Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Robert Wilkins concluded that key portions of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy likely violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because they appear rooted in hostility toward transgender people rather than legitimate military concerns.

[...]

"As such, at this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus."

I find that his ruling calls the ban exactly what it is: a bigoted, targeted attack on us. Al Jazeera wrote;

A second judge – Judith Rogers, who was picked by former Democratic President Bill Clinton – agreed with his opinion, but only in part. She felt it should extend to those who seek to enlist, too.

And the third judge, Trump pick Justin Walker, issued a dissent questioning the court’s ability to second-guess US military policy.

Writing for the fractured majority, Wilkins wrote that Trump’s policy violates the “constitutional right to equal protection of the law”.

[...]

In it, he denounced the US armed forces as having been infiltrated with “radical gender ideology”. He proceeded to describe transgender people as unfit for service for embracing a “false ‘gender identity'”.

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” Trump wrote.

Our best case that this is a targeted attack against us comes directly from Trump's and Hegseth's own words.

“To add insult, the President labeled transgender persons as dishonorable, undisciplined, arrogant, selfish liars,” Wilkins added, pointing to the executive order.

He pointed out that the transgender plaintiffs in the case had a combined 130 years of military service and had earned more than 80 commendations for their work.

In the face of such evidence, Wilkins said the Trump administration had “forfeited any argument” that “retaining these service members will harm national security”.

The New Republic wrote...

“What has been clearly and repeatedly explained are the foundational premises of the Hegseth Policy: persons with a ‘false gender identity’ are unfit for the military, and persons with a history of gender dysphoria are also unfit because they lack ‘honesty, humility, … and integrity,’” the court wrote. “Those animus-filled reasons were expressly given to justify aspects of the Hegseth Policy. As a result, this is not a case where we are left to speculate why the government drafted such broad, undifferentiated classifications. Unless we are going to fall for the old Groucho Marx line—‘who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?’—we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the Hegseth Policy.”

The ban was announced via a Trump executive order in the president’s first week in office last year. It stated that “radical gender ideology” had infected the military, and that being transgender wasn’t an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.”

“A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,” it read—equating gender dysphoria with mental illness or a deep moral deficiency.

Ultimately, this isn't over until the Supreme Court says it is, but the Appeals Court has laid out a sound, powerful legal ruling on exactly why this policy is discriminatory.

The judges also pointed out that the facts show that the records of servicemembers was exemplary! The plaintiffs' 130 combined years of service and 80+ commendations completely dismantles the argument that this ban has anything to do with military readiness. It proves that the service members are operating with the utmost humility and selflessness, while the policy itself is what creates the disruption.