First, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that a woman is an adult female, and now that common sense has crossed the Atlantic. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it will allow the Trump administration's transgender military ban to take effect.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration's transgender military ban to take effect. pic.twitter.com/qUBz7zYFfX
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 6, 2025
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all opposed, not surprisingly.
BREAKING: Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to implement ban on transgender people in the military
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 6, 2025
WE ARE LEAVING WOKENESS AND WEAKNESS BEHIND - Sec of Defense pic.twitter.com/BpezJMds2z
The need to announce your pronouns on your desk seems to have passed.
This defines what I voted for. 🔥🔥💯 pic.twitter.com/FbDk7A8eGW
— Sputnik (@VasBroughtToX) May 6, 2025
The military is for defending the nation, not validating delusions. We’re done playing dress-up with national security.
— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) May 6, 2025
Was/Were
— PuraVida (@x_PuraVida_x) May 6, 2025
— Layden Robinson (@LaydenRobinson) May 6, 2025
It is a good ruling. We need a military that is taken seriously around the world.
— Raymond Henson (@RayhensonRE) May 6, 2025
NBC News reports:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to implement his ban on transgender people serving in the military.
The justices granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift a nationwide injunction blocking the policy while litigation continues.
The court's brief order noted that the three liberal justices dissented.
The decision is a loss for the seven individual transgender service members, led by lead plaintiff Emily Shilling, a Navy commander, who had sued to block it.
"Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender service members who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense," Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign Foundation, two groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement.
The policy "has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice," the groups added.
Recommended
And transgenderism has nothing to do with lethality. Note that NBC News doesn't even feel the need to name "the three liberal justices." We all know who they are.
Excellent! Keep the wins coming!
— FugitiveMama (@fugitivemama) May 6, 2025
Make believe time is over
— chris canio (@ChrisCanio) May 6, 2025
"Will allow"
— Ross Davidson (@RossDavidson7) May 6, 2025
Wrong. They *act as if* they can allow it.
The President is a coequal branch and does not need permission from the Courts to enact his duties.
— Aaron Michael Daley (@amdaleynews) May 6, 2025
It was obviously going to be found constitutional. It has always been acceptable to ban the mentally ill from the military, and gender dysphoria is as much a mental illness as ADHD or BPD.
— Zac (@Zacbunchanumbrs) May 6, 2025
So SCOTUS is going to permit the President to actually BE the Commander in Chief? How gracious of them.
— Colin O'Brien (@RadioCarpenter) May 6, 2025
Gee. How nice of them to allow the sitting President to do his job !
— PegSam (@SamPeg75698) May 6, 2025
I assume this is just while litigation plays out? Or is this the end of the litigation itself?
— Brant Lindsey (@bjlinds99) May 6, 2025
Right, this is temporary until the litigation plays out. But it's not a good sign for the plaintiffs.
Even your wording, “The Supreme Court will allow.”
— Dan (@nativedgp) May 6, 2025
They should have no standing. This is a 100% executive branch issue. Military preparedness should have 0 input from without.
There's no reason that gender dysphoria shouldn't be a disqualifying factor when so many other mental illnesses are.
***