The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for a Department of Defense policy concerning transgender military service to take effect, lifting a lower court injunction that had temporarily blocked its implementation. The ruling is seen as a procedural victory for the federal government, though the Court did not rule on the broader constitutional questions at the heart of the ongoing legal challenge.

The case, Shilling v. United States, stems from a 2017 executive order that directed the Pentagon to revise guidelines related to medical standards and eligibility for transgender individuals seeking to serve in the military. The administration has argued that the policy is designed to uphold military readiness and unit cohesion.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not end the legal battle but allows the policy to take effect while litigation continues. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, favoring a continuation of the lower court’s injunction.

The legal process began when several transgender service members filed suit in both Washington, D.C., and Seattle, claiming that the policy unlawfully discriminated against them based on their gender identity. In the Seattle case, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issued a preliminary injunction in March, pausing the policy and citing concerns about potential violations of constitutional protections, including equal protection and due process.

Judge Settle called the policy a “blanket prohibition” and found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on several of their claims. His ruling aimed to maintain the status quo for transgender service members during the legal proceedings.

However, the administration appealed that decision, and after an appellate court declined to pause the injunction, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court’s ruling and allowed the policy to proceed.

The government maintains that the policy supports critical interests such as cost management, discipline, and overall effectiveness of the armed forces. Critics, however, argue that the rule excludes qualified individuals based solely on their identity, without evidence of any impact on performance or readiness.

The legal challenges to the policy remain active in lower courts and are expected to continue for months. The final outcome could have a lasting impact on the rights of transgender individuals within the U.S. military and on how courts interpret the balance between military judgment and individual constitutional protections.