Supreme Court asked to let Trump discharge transgender troops
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on August 28, 2026, to review a lower-court ruling that blocks enforcement of its transgender military policy against current service members covered by the case.
The filing is a petition for a writ of certiorari in United States v. Nicolas Talbott, arising from Talbott v. United States in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It is a request for Supreme Court review, not a Supreme Court ruling. The justices have not agreed to hear the case.
What the administration filed
The Justice Department asked the Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit’s June 1, 2026, decision and restore the administration’s ability to enforce the policy against the current service members who brought the lawsuit.
The government argues that military personnel decisions deserve substantial judicial deference because they involve readiness, cohesion, good order and discipline. It also says the policy should be reviewed under rational-basis principles rather than a more demanding form of constitutional scrutiny.
Those are the administration’s legal arguments and stated justifications. The filing does not itself authorize immediate discharges or change the injunction now protecting the named plaintiffs.
What the D.C. Circuit decided
The D.C. Circuit’s ruling came at the preliminary-injunction stage. The court held that the challengers were likely to succeed in showing that the policy violates the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The appellate court concluded that the policy discriminates based on sex or transgender status and that the government’s stated reasons did not overcome the constitutional challenge at this early stage. The ruling was not a final judgment on all the claims.
The court divided the relief by category. It affirmed the preliminary injunction as it applies to the named plaintiffs who are already serving in the military, but vacated the injunction for plaintiffs seeking to enlist. The court also narrowed the order to the named current service members rather than leaving a nationwide injunction covering every service member or all prospective recruits.
What the policy does
The policy generally disqualifies people with current gender dysphoria, a history of the condition or a history of related interventions. It also contains separation provisions for some existing service members.
The administration has defended that framework by pointing to military readiness, good order and discipline, unit cohesion and medical costs. The government’s petition asks the Supreme Court to decide whether those military judgments receive greater deference under the Constitution and whether the policy survives rational-basis review.
Who is protected now
The petition lists 28 named plaintiffs. The Washington Post reported that 25 are on administrative leave and three remain in service. Those employment-status figures come from news reporting, not from the petition’s question presented.
For the named current service members, the lower-court protection remains in place unless the Supreme Court separately changes that posture. The August 28 filing does not by itself remove the injunction.
People outside the lawsuit may face a different situation. Because the D.C. Circuit narrowed the relief and vacated it for those seeking accession, the broader policy can continue to affect prospective recruits and service members who are not covered by the order.
What happens next
The respondents will have an opportunity to file a response before the justices decide whether to grant review. SCOTUSblog reported that the response is expected in approximately one month, although the Court’s actual schedule controls.
A certiorari petition does not guarantee that the Court will hear the case. It is also too early to say that the dispute will be decided during the term beginning October 5, 2026; that would require the justices first to grant review and then set a schedule.
The administration could seek separate emergency relief, such as a stay, but any such request would be a distinct step from the August 28 petition. Until the Court acts, the named current service members’ existing protection remains the immediate legal posture.
Why the case matters
The dispute could affect the military careers of the plaintiffs and provide broader guidance on how courts review transgender-related military policies. It also raises a recurring constitutional question: how much deference the judiciary must give military judgments when service members challenge personnel rules under the Fifth Amendment.
The next milestones are the respondents’ filing and the justices’ decision on whether to hear the case. Until then, the Supreme Court has been asked to review the policy, but it has not ruled on the petition.
Sources
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Nicolas Talbott, et al.
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion in Talbott v. United States
- The Washington Post: Trump asks Supreme Court to allow military to discharge transgender troops
- SCOTUSblog: Trump administration asks Supreme Court to consider ban on transgender persons in the military
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.