美上诉法院裁定跨性别军人禁令可能违宪 但允许限制新兵入伍Appeals Court Rules Transgender Military Ban Likely Unconstitutional but Allows Enlistment Restrictions

美国哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院的三法官小组周一做出了这项2比1的分裂裁决。该裁决在保护现役军人与限制新兵入伍之间划定了界限。一方面，上诉法院维持了针对国防部的初步禁令，阻止其将现役跨性别军人驱逐出美军，但该保护令的范围被缩小，仅适用于本案中的现役原告。另一方面，法院允许特朗普政府继续对试图入伍的跨性别原告实施限制，阻止他们加入美军。

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 split decision on Monday, drawing a clear line between protecting active-duty personnel and restricting new enlistments. On one hand, the appeals court left in place a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Defense from removing active-duty transgender service members, though the panel narrowed this protective order to cover only the active-duty plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit. On the other hand, the court allowed the Trump administration to continue enforcing restrictions against transgender plaintiffs who are seeking to enlist, effectively blocking them from joining the military.

在具体投票中，法官罗伯特·威尔金斯与朱迪丝·罗杰斯在保护现役军人方面达成了多数意见。然而，在对待试图入伍的原告时，威尔金斯法官与贾斯汀·沃克法官则组成了多数，允许政府继续对这些试图入伍的跨性别原告执行限制政策。这一分裂的法律结果意味着，虽然处于诉讼中的现役跨性别军人暂时获得了留任保障，但新兵入伍的通道依然受阻。

In the specific breakdown of the ruling, Judges Robert Wilkins and Judith Rogers formed the majority in protecting active-duty service members from removal. However, when addressing the plaintiffs who sought to join the military, Judge Wilkins and Judge Justin Walker aligned to allow the administration to enforce enlistment restrictions against them. This split legal outcome means that while active-duty plaintiffs currently serving are shielded from discharge during the litigation, the barriers preventing new transgender recruits from enlisting remain in place.

在多数派意见书中，联邦巡回法官罗伯特·威尔金斯与朱迪丝·罗杰斯明确指出，国防部长皮特·海格塞斯去年实施的这项政策涉嫌违反宪法赋予的平等保护保障。威尔金斯法官在判词中写道，政府声称该政策完全基于“性别焦虑”的理由纯属借口。相反，该政策至少在一定程度上是建立在一种非法的国家利益之上，即企图伤害跨性别者这一在政治上不受欢迎的群体。他进一步指出，唐纳德·特朗普总统明确且仅仅因为跨性别者的性别认同，就宣布他们绝对不适合服兵役。

In the majority opinion, Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins and Judith Rogers agreed that the policy implemented last year by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth likely violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Writing for the majority, Judge Wilkins stated that the government's declared reason for issuing the policy based solely on gender dysphoria was pretextual. Instead, the court found that the policy was premised, at least in part, on a non-legitimate state interest to harm the politically unpopular group of transgender persons. Wilkins noted that President Donald Trump had declared transgender people categorically unfit for military service explicitly because of their gender identity.

多数派法官的判决对海格塞斯执行特朗普2025年1月总统令的行为进行了直接驳斥。威尔金斯法官在判词中强调，这种将跨性别者排除在军队之外的禁令是违法的，不仅具有任意性，而且是基于敌意。法院认定，特朗普政府的这项政策旨在根据性别认同将特定人群排除在军事服务之外，这在宪法层面是站不住脚的。

The majority's ruling represents a direct rebuke of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's implementation of Donald Trump's January 2025 presidential order. Judge Wilkins wrote in the opinion that banning transgender people from the military in this manner is illegal, describing the policy as both arbitrary and based on animus. The court concluded that the administration's policy was designed to exclude individuals from military service based on their gender identity, which failed to meet constitutional standards.

该案的法律诉讼源于唐纳德·特朗普于2025年1月签署的一项总统行政令，该行政令声称跨性别军人的性别认同会损害“军事准备”，并要求将数百名跨性别现役军人驱逐出伍。随后，几名现役跨性别军人以及其他试图入伍的跨性别者通过律师提起诉讼，并申请了初步禁令。针对这一诉求，美国联邦地区法院法官阿娜·雷耶斯于2025年3月做出裁决，认定特朗普排除跨性别军人的行政令涉嫌违反宪法赋予他们的权利，并据此颁布了初步禁令。特朗普政府随后对雷耶斯的这一裁决提出了上诉。

The legal battle originated from an executive order signed by Donald Trump in January 2025, which claimed that the sexual identity of transgender service members harms "military readiness" and mandated the removal of hundreds of transgender troops. In response, several active-duty transgender service members and individuals seeking to enlist filed a lawsuit and requested a preliminary injunction. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. ruled in their favor, concluding that Trump's executive order to exclude transgender troops likely violated their constitutional rights, prompting the administration to appeal.

此次哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院三法官小组做出的2比1裁决，在很大程度上维持了雷耶斯法官在2025年3月做出的判决。不过，上诉法院的多数派法官决定对原有的初步禁令范围进行限缩。上诉法院裁定，该禁令将仅适用于目前正在军队服役的现役原告，而不再涵盖那些试图入伍的原告，从而允许政府继续对新兵实施限制。这一调整在维持地方法院核心宪法判断的同时，缩小了司法救济的适用对象范围。

The D.C. Circuit panel's 2-1 decision largely upholds Judge Reyes's March 2025 ruling, but it narrows the scope of the legal relief. While Judge Reyes had issued a broader preliminary injunction, the appeals court majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to cover only the active-duty plaintiffs currently serving in the military. Consequently, the administration is permitted to continue enforcing its restrictions against the plaintiffs who are trying to enlist, balancing the constitutional rebuke with a restricted application of the court's protection.

尽管上诉法院做出了这一裁决，但该判决目前已被暂缓执行，这意味着特朗普政府的跨性别军人禁令在现阶段依然维持有效。上诉法院决定推迟该裁决的立即生效时间，旨在给政府留出充足的时间，以便向哥伦比亚特区联邦巡回上诉法院提起全院上诉。由于此案涉及重大的宪法争议，预计特朗普政府将会对这一裁决提出挑战。

Despite the appeals court's ruling, the decision has been temporarily put on hold and will not go into immediate effect, meaning the Trump administration's ban remains in place for now. The panel stayed its own ruling to allow the administration time to seek a review from the full D.C. Circuit appeals court. The government is expected to challenge the split decision as it continues to defend the military policy.

法律专家和舆论普遍预计，随着诉讼程序的继续推进，该案最终极有可能上诉至美国最高法院。在此之前，美国最高法院已于去年允许该禁令在诉讼进行期间继续生效。随着这起针对特朗普政府反多样性议程的诉讼不断演变，该案在全院上诉法院乃至最高法院的后续审理，将决定美军跨性别军人政策的最终命运。

As the litigation plays out, the legal battle is ultimately expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which had allowed the ban to remain in effect last year while the lawsuits proceeded. The upcoming appeals to the full circuit court and potentially the nation's highest court will determine the final legal standing of the administration's policy, representing a significant test for its broader agenda.