The Trump administration is asking the US Supreme Court to let the Pentagon immediately discharge 28 currently serving transgender service members and a prospective enlistee not covered by the discharge injunction, even as their legal challenge to the military's transgender ban remains unresolved.
The emergency appeal seeks to overturn protections that have allowed the service members to remain in uniform while a lower-court case moves towards trial in January. The Justice Department has described the issue as one of 'exceptional importance', arguing that the military must retain broad authority to determine who is eligible to serve.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a lower-court ruling blocking the discharges was 'gravely erroneous' and improperly interfered with military decision-making. The emergency application places the Supreme Court at the centre of another major fight over President Donald Trump's policy on transgender people in the armed forces.
The 29 plaintiffs include active-duty troops, reservists, National Guard members and a person seeking to enlist. Their lawyers say the service members are qualified, have met military standards and, collectively, have earned more than 80 commendations.
The administration's petition seeks to lift a preliminary injunction that currently prevents the Pentagon from enforcing the transgender retention policy against the named service members. Trump issued Executive Order 14183 in January 2025, directing the military to establish a policy that effectively excludes transgender people from service.
Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth subsequently issued guidance covering people with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, as well as people who have undergone certain forms of gender transition. The policy has faced immediate legal challenges.
In June 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld protections for current service members, finding that the policy places the plaintiffs in a situation where they were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims at this stage.
The court said the government had failed to adequately connect the exclusion of transgender troops with its stated interests in military readiness and standards. The administration strongly disputes that conclusion.
Sauer argues that the ruling conflicts with Supreme Court precedent requiring courts to give substantial deference to the political branches on military affairs.
The plaintiffs are part of Talbott v. United States, a case challenging the Pentagon policy. Army Reserve Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott is the lead plaintiff. The D.C. Circuit's June ruling noted that the currently serving plaintiffs had collectively served for about 130 years and earned more than 80 commendations.
The court also noted that the government did not dispute that the service members had served honourably and met the military's required standards. That distinction is central to the legal dispute.
The government says the case concerns the military's authority to establish eligibility standards. The plaintiffs argue that the policy unlawfully singles out transgender people despite their ability to meet existing military requirements.
Jennifer Levi, an attorney representing the service members with GLAD Law, said the administration's own lawyers had acknowledged that the plaintiffs were qualified and meeting military standards. She argued that removing them would waste taxpayer money and eliminate experienced personnel.
The June ruling did not permanently settle whether Trump's transgender military policy is constitutional. Instead, the D.C. Circuit upheld preliminary protections for current service members while the broader lawsuit proceeds.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a sufficient likelihood of success at this stage and that removing them before the case was resolved could cause serious harm. The court also narrowed the injunction for prospective enlistees, distinguishing between people already serving and those seeking to join the armed forces.
