“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
People with HIV but no symptoms sued the military because they were excluded from military service.
What happened in this case?
The US military has a policy that excludes people with HIV from serving or enlisting in the military, even if they are totally asymptomatic and undetectable. A number of individuals excluded by the policy along with a veterans’ group sued the military, based largely on a previous Fourth Circuit decision ruling that the military’s inconsistent treatment of people who contracted HIV during their military service was improper.
Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was nominated to the US district court for the Eastern District of Virginia by President Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction against the military. She relied on a binding Fourth Circuit precedent from 2020 called Roe v. Department of Defense. In Roe, the court held that dismissing servicemembers who contracted HIV during military service violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was “at odds with modern science.” The 2020 court cited “stigma, fear, and misinformation about HIV” that “persist” from decades ago.
Nevertheless, a panel of three judges on the Fourth Circuit, including Trump judges Julius Richardson and Allison Rushing, reversed the district court. In a February 2026 opinion by George H.W. Bush judge Paul Niemeyer, the panel ruled that they should defer to the military’s consistent policy and that their prior ruling in Roe did not control since it dealt with inconsistent and “arbitrary” treatment of people who contracted HIV while already in the military service. See Wilkins v Hegseth.
Has the court’s ruling been criticized?
Even immediately after its issuance, the Fourth Circuit decision has been roundly criticized in the medical community and elsewhere. Dr. Stephen Lee, executive director of the Natonal Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, explained that with modern medications, people with HIV can “achieve an undetectable viral load and are healthy and fit,” so that “there is no reason they cannot serve their country.” The court’s ruling, he went on, “is not rooted in science, but stigma and discrimination,” and “will lead the United States military to lose qualified enlistees who are able and eager to serve their country.”
Why is the result harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judges Richardson and Rushing will obviously harm people with HIV who want to join the military, as well as the military itself. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.