A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled in favor of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration, allowing the Pentagon to move forward with its reinstated policy restricting military service by transgender individuals. In doing so, the court sharply criticized a lower-court judge for overstepping her authority in blocking the policy.

In a 2–1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction that had halted enforcement of the policy. The ruling allows the administration’s position to remain in effect while the legal challenge continues.

The panel said the district court failed to properly defer to the judgment of military leadership. “In our view, the court afforded insufficient deference to the Secretary’s considered judgment,” the appeals court wrote, concluding that the lower court improperly substituted its own assessment for that of the Pentagon.

The original injunction had been issued by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. The appellate majority opinion was authored by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, and joined by Judge Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee.

Judge Katsas emphasized that the U.S. military has long enforced strict medical and mental fitness standards to ensure operational effectiveness. For decades, those standards excluded individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a condition associated with significant psychological distress.

Under the administration’s 2025 policy, individuals with gender dysphoria are generally disqualified from military service. According to the ruling, Defense Secretary Hegseth determined that the policy supports core military objectives, including combat readiness, unit cohesion, and fiscal responsibility.

The court noted that Hegseth relied on extensive materials when reaching his decision, including analyses of prior policy shifts in 2016 and 2018, as well as more recent research examining how gender dysphoria may affect both individuals and overall military performance. Despite this, the district court blocked the policy based on its own interpretation of the evidence, a move the appeals court said exceeded its role.

The dispute stems from executive actions taken earlier this year. In January, President Trump signed two orders titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” and “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” These directives instructed the military to remove race- and sex-based preferences from personnel decisions and to reassess policies related to gender identity, pronoun use, and other internal practices.

As part of that broader review, the Department of Defense updated its guidance on service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In March, the administration asked Judge Reyes to lift her injunction and allow the revised policy to take effect.

During a contentious court hearing, Reyes questioned Justice Department attorneys aggressively, including drawing comparisons between military spending on medications such as Viagra and the costs of treating gender dysphoria.

Hegseth responded publicly after the ruling, criticizing the judge’s involvement in military policy decisions. In a social media post, he mocked the idea that a federal judge should override military leadership on matters of combat readiness and operational planning.

The issue reached the Supreme Court in May, when the justices allowed the Trump administration to enforce the policy while legal challenges continue through the lower courts. That decision signaled the Court’s willingness to grant deference to the executive branch in military affairs, at least for now.

In a separate but related development involving federal authority and parental rights, the Supreme Court earlier this week vacated a lower-court ruling that had upheld New York State’s strict school vaccination requirements, which do not permit religious exemptions.

The case was brought by Amish families who argued that New York had long recognized religious objections to mandatory vaccinations before eliminating those exemptions in 2019. Lower federal courts, including the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had ruled against the families.

However, the Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of a recent decision addressing parental rights in public education. That earlier ruling involved a Maryland school district’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ-related curriculum.

By vacating the 2nd Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court effectively erased it, requiring judges to take a fresh look at whether New York’s policy improperly burdens parents’ religious freedoms.

Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, which represents the Amish families, welcomed the decision. He described it as an important step toward protecting religious liberty.

“The Amish community has lived according to its faith for generations,” Shackelford said. “They are not asking for special treatment—only that the state respect their deeply held beliefs and allow them to raise their children accordingly.”