Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a challenge to the Hegseth Policy, which bars individuals with gender dysphoria from serving in the U.S. military. The policy was issued by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in February 2025 under Executive Order 14183 from President Trump. Plaintiffs, who are transgender service members with gender dysphoria diagnoses, sought preliminary injunctive relief in the district court, which preliminarily enjoined the policy on equal protection grounds. The government appealed and moved for a stay. The Supreme Court stayed a similar injunction in United States v. Shilling (May 6, 2025). This court granted the stay pending appeal, finding the policy likely does not violate equal protection and that the government would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.
Issues
- The central question is whether the Hegseth Policy results from the professional judgment of military authorities or is driven by animus toward transgender individuals. The majority finds the policy advances legitimate military interests including readiness, unit cohesion, privacy concerns, and cost control, warranting deference. The dissent argues the policy lacks evidentiary support, ignores military experience with transgender service members, and is openly fueled by animus expressed in Executive Order 14183.
- The government appealed the district court's preliminary injunction and moved for a stay pending appeal. The court must evaluate four Nken factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm to the government absent a stay, (3) substantial harm to plaintiffs if stay issued, and (4) public interest. The majority granted the stay, while the dissenting opinion argued the government failed to make a strong showing on any factor.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined the 2025 Hegseth Policy on equal protection grounds, concluding intermediate scrutiny was appropriate because the policy discriminates based on sex and transgender status. The court held the policy unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny and alternatively found it motivated by animus toward transgender individuals, failing even rational-basis scrutiny. The government appealed, arguing the policy reflects considered military judgment advancing legitimate interests including combat readiness, unit cohesion, and cost control.
Holdings
The court granted the government's motion for stay pending appeal and dissolved the administrative stay entered on March 27, 2025. The majority opinion concludes that the Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection and is likely constitutional, warranting a stay pending appeal.
Remedies
The court ordered that the administrative stay entered on March 27, 2025, be dissolved and further ordered that the motion for stay pending appeal be granted. The court concluded that the Hegseth Policy is likely constitutional and that the remaining stay factors favor the government.
Legal Principles
- Court analyzes whether policy is driven by animus rather than legitimate military interests, applying rational-basis review and finding that animus does not invalidate policy if legitimate interests exist.
- Court applies four-factor test from Nken v. Holder to determine whether to grant stay pending appeal, considering likelihood of success on merits, irreparable harm, substantial harm to plaintiffs, and public interest.
- Court emphasizes judicial deference to political branches' professional judgment on military policy, citing constitutional allocation of military authority to President and Congress.
Precedent Name
- Trump v. Hawaii
- Romer v. Evans
- Rostker v. Goldberg
- Goldberg v. Weinberger
- United States v. Virginia
Cited Statute
- U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 Clauses 11 and 14
- 10 U.S.C. §§ 7419 (Army), 8431 (Navy), 9419 (Air Force)
- U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2 Clause 1
Judge Name
- Circuit Judge Rao
- Circuit Judge Pillard
- Circuit Judge Katsas
Passage Text
- The Hegseth Policy likely does not violate equal protection. We doubt that the policy triggers any form of heightened scrutiny. In Skrmetti, the Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting the use of hormones to treat gender dysphoria in minors 'classifies on the basis of medical use' and thus does not discriminate based on either sex or transgender status.
- This suit arises because the government has now decided to force every transgender servicemember out of the military through a policy based on nothing more than negative attitudes about transgender identity. The Hegseth Policy springs from the Executive Order and espouses the same denigration and vitriol. Contextual factors—the statements of triumphant policymakers, the hasty and unsupported reversal of apparently successful policies backed by careful study, and the categorical sweep of the new policy—all confirm that the Hegseth Policy, like the Executive Order, is driven by animus.
- The Hegseth Policy is likely constitutional because it reflects a considered judgment of military leaders and furthers legitimate military interests. The Hegseth Policy reflects the considered judgment of the Secretary of Defense and military leaders in the Defense Department. The policy was informed by 'existing and prior DoD policy, and prior DoD studies and reviews of service by individuals with gender dysphoria, including a review of medical literature regarding the medical risks associated with [the] presence and treatment of gender dysphoria.'