Washington — The Supreme Court enabled President Donald Trump to enforce a contentious ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, allowing the administration to proceed despite ongoing legal challenges.

The justices approved an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift a nationwide injunction that had previously halted the implementation of this policy. In a brief order, the court acknowledged dissent from the three liberal justices, indicating divided opinions on the matter.

This decision presents a setback for seven transgender service members, including lead plaintiff Emily Shilling, a commander in the Navy, who previously sought to block the ban through legal action. Their efforts reflect longstanding concerns regarding military inclusivity and the rights of transgender personnel.

Concurrently, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had also issued a ruling against the policy on a nationwide scale. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit placed that ruling on hold while it considers a more permanent resolution. The appeals court has yet to reach a definitive ruling on the matter.

The policy, first announced by the Trump administration in February, represents a significant shift from previous legislation. It broadly disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria or those who have undergone medical treatments related to the condition from military service. Solicitor General D. John Sauer insisted in legal documents that courts must give “substantial deference” to the Defense Department’s assessments regarding military effectiveness.

In support of the ban, the government referenced a Pentagon review from the previous Trump administration asserting that transgender individuals pose threats to the military’s operational effectiveness. Challengers of the ban argue it violates the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law, along with other constitutional provisions safeguarding individual rights.

Supporters of transgender service members maintain that these individuals have demonstrated their capability to serve effectively. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs pointed to the rollback of earlier restrictions by President Joe Biden as evidence of a growing recognition of the rights and abilities of transgender military personnel.

The ban’s proponents have faced criticism for fostering hostility toward transgender individuals, with legal representatives for the plaintiffs arguing that it stems from an unjustified belief that such individuals do not exist. They contend that the policy itself reflects widespread discrimination.

In March, a federal judge in Washington state ruled against the policy, stating that the issue at hand was clear-cut. Following that decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to suspend the ruling. This prompted the Trump administration to appeal to the nation’s highest court, setting the stage for ongoing debates over military policy and LGBTQ+ rights.