“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?
Trump’s Defense Secretary enacted a policy that effectively bans transgender people from serving in the military.
What happened in this case?
Per instruction from President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth adopted a policy in February 2025 that effectively banned all trans people from service in the military. The policy claims that people who have had gender dysphoria are unfit for military service.
A number of active-duty soldiers with gender dysphoria filed suit in DC, alleging that the policy is illegal. District Court judge Ana Reyes, who was nominated by President Biden, issued a preliminary injunction against the anti-transgender policy.
The Trump Administration appealed to the DC Circuit and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal. The stay motion was decided by a panel of three judges, including Trump judges Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao plus Obama nominee Cornelia Pillard, in December 2025 in Talbott v United States.
How did Trump judges Katsas and Rao decide the case?
Judge Katsas wrote a 2-1 decision, joined by Judge Rao and to which Judge Pillard dissented, that granted the stay sought by Trump, effectively reversing the preliminary injunction. Katsas maintained that the Hegseth policy did not violate the Constitution based on the Supreme Courts’s recent decision in the Skrmetti case, where the Court majority held that a law prohibiting the use of hormones to treat gender dysphoria classifies on the basis of medical condition, and thus allegedly does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status.
What did Judge Pillard say in dissent?
Judge Pillard vigorously dissented. Based on a careful review of the policy and the record, she found that the policy applied to all transgender individuals and was based on “animus” towards them with no evidence that it “serves any” other purpose. Nor has the government shown, she pointed out, that “the military is likely to suffer any harm” if the injunction remains in place. On the other hand, she wrote, transgender service members are already beginning to suffer “substantial and irreparable harm” as the policy is beginning to be implemented. For example, she expiained, the policy subjects transgender servicemembers to a “gratuitously harsh administrative separation process,” which causes “immediate and severe career harm,” and includes the “degrading step” of requiring transgender servicemembers to “either attend their separation hearings dressed up according to the military standards of their birth sex “ or “waive” any right to participate.
The record shows, she concluded, that “thousands of qualified servicemembers will lose careers they have built over decades, drawn up short by a policy that would repay their commitment and service to our nation with detriment and derision.”
Why is the result of this case harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Katsas and Rao clearly harms the plaintiffs and all other transgender members of the military. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.