A federal appeals court dealt a new setback to President Donald Trump's administration's policy restricting military service for transgender people, concluding that the measure likely violates constitutional guarantees and is based on discriminatory criteria.

The decision, issued Monday by a divided three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, largely upholds a previous ruling by a federal court in Washington, D.C., that had partially blocked implementation of the government-sponsored policy.

Although the ruling represents a victory for several transgender soldiers who filed the lawsuit, the resolution limits its scope and only protects, for now, those who are already part of the Armed Forces and directly involved in the litigation.

The controversy dates back to January 2025, when Trump signed an executive order restricting the service of transgender people in the Military. Subsequently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implemented rules that disqualify from service individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a medical condition related to the conflict between a person's gender identity and the sex assigned at birth.

The plaintiffs argued that the measure constitutes unjustified discrimination and violates their constitutional rights.

They recognize the trajectory of affected soldiers

In the majority opinion, Justice Robert Wilkins held that the policy appears to be motivated by “the mere desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” referring to transgender people.

The magistrate highlighted that the Government did not question the performance of the plaintiffs, who together have accumulated more than 130 years of military service and dozens of recognitions for their work.

According to the resolution, the administration did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the permanence of these soldiers affects preparedness or national security. The majority judges concluded that the justifications offered by the Pentagon fail to conceal what they consider a discriminatory motivation behind the policy.

Judge Judith Rogers agreed with most of the ruling and upheld protections for transgender active-duty military members. However, he also expressed that the precautionary measure should be extended to those seeking to join the Armed Forces.

Judicial divisions persist and the legal battle continues

The decision was not unanimous. Judge Justin Walker, appointed during Trump's first term, issued a dissenting opinion upholding the authority of the executive branch to set policies related to military personnel.

Walker argued that courts lack the experience and power to question decisions made by the president and the Department of Defense on matters related to military readiness.

“Congress and the commander in chief are those who have the constitutional authority to make these determinations,” the magistrate wrote.

Despite the favorable ruling for the plaintiffs, the judicial dispute is far from over. The ruling will not take effect immediately, as both sides will have the opportunity to request that the case be reviewed by the full appeals court.

In addition, the controversy could return again before the United States Supreme Court. The high court previously allowed Trump's policy to remain in effect while litigation proceeded in lower courts, although it has not yet issued a final ruling on the constitutionality of the ban.

Monday's resolution represents one of the most forceful judicial pronouncements so far against the policy of exclusion of transgender people in the Armed Forces and keeps open a debate that continues to generate deep legal and political divisions in the country.