The Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is scheduled to take effect Friday after delays and ongoing court challenges to the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) policy. 

D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, presided over a hearing March 21 where she requested the department delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy. 

Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect. 

“I don’t want to jam up the D.C. Circuit. That’s my main concern here,” Reyes said during the March 21 hearing. “My chambers worked incredibly hard to get out an opinion on time.”

A SECOND JUDGE RULES AGAINST TRUMP’S REMOVAL OF TRANSGENDER TROOPS

Reyes gave the government a 3 p.m. deadline that same day to return about her request to push the deadline. 

The government responded, saying it agreed to delay the March 26 deadline to March 28. 

The legal challenge comes as the U.S. Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.

HEGSETH SUGGESTS JUDGE REPORT TO MILITARY BASES AFTER RULING THAT PENTAGON MUST ALLOW TRANSGENDER TROOPS

A decision from the high court, however, is not expected until May or June. 

“The Skrmetti decision will occupy a good bit of the field here and provide some guidance. And so I doubt the D.C. Circuit is going to feel the need to rush things,” Charles Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. 

“If I was sitting on the D.C. Circuit and I had all these other cases coming my way, and I was on a three-judge panel, I don’t think it’d be the top of my pile.”

D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, held a hearing March 21 and requested that the Department of Defense delay its original Mar. 26 enactment deadline.  (Getty/SenatorDurbin via YouTube)

Despite the looming deadline, Stimson said the ban will be “on pause” as the parties work through the appellate process. 

“I don’t think the secretary is going to do anything in violation of a court order,” Stimson said. “Even if they disagree with that, you’d be wise not to.”

TRUMP ADMIN ASKS FEDERAL JUDGE TO DISSOLVE INJUNCTION BARRING TRANSGENDER MILITARY BAN

Reyes had issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs March 18. Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit, who include transgender individuals, “face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm” that would warrant a preliminary injunction.”

On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”

On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban.  (Reuters/Yves Herman)

The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.

The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy it not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that “the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’” solely applies to “‘individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.’”

In its motion requesting to dissolve the March 18 injunction, the government wrote that the March 21 guidance constitutes a “significant change” that would warrant the court dissolving the injunction. 

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Under the requirements, a party requesting to dissolve a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” that shows that continued enforcement of the order would be “detrimental to the public interest.” 

“The March 21, 2025, guidance constitutes a ‘significant change,’” the filing states. “Whereas the Court has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants, the new guidance underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”

Fox News’ Jake Gibson contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a federal restriction on the sale of parts kits that permit unlicensed gun owners to make firearms at home that cannot be traced by the police.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices agreed these homemade weapons, often referred to as “ghost guns,” qualify as firearms under federal law.

“Today, thousands of law-enforcement agencies nationwide depend on the [federal] tracing system to link firearms involved in crimes to their owners,” said Justice Neil M. Gorsuch for the court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

The decision upholds a regulation issued in 2022 by the Biden administration that was strongly supported by police and prosecutors.

The ruling overturns conservative judges in Texas who said Congress had not given federal regulators the power to outlaw “parts kits” that could be assembled into a weapon.

It’s a rare win for gun control advocates in the high court.

“This Supreme Court decision is great news for everyone but the criminals who have adopted untraceable ghost guns as their weapons of choice,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Ghost guns look like regular guns, shoot like regular guns, and kill like regular guns — so it’s only logical that the Supreme Court just affirmed they can also be regulated like regular guns.”

Under the regulations, gunmakers and dealers are required to conduct a background and age verification of buyers, make sure the weapon has a serial number and keep records of the sale.

“This is an important decision that will help reduce access to guns by criminals and other people barred from owning firearms,” said UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler. “In recent years, the number of untraceable ghost guns recovered from criminals and crime scenes has skyrocketed.”

Last year, the court’s conservative majority blocked a regulation supported by both the Trump and Biden administrations that had outlawed “bump stocks,” which allowed semiautomatic weapons to fire rapidly like a machine gun. By a 6-3 vote, the justices said these devices did not fit the definition of a machine gun as set by Congress.

But the court said Wednesday the Gun Control of Act of 1968 broadly defined a firearm as “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

The Los Angeles Police Department and other police agencies have voiced alarm at the growing threat of easy-to-assemble guns that can be bought as kits online.

Three years ago, the LAPD said these “ghost guns are an epidemic not only in Los Angeles but nationwide. … Ghost guns are real, they work, and they kill.”

The Justice Department under Biden told the court that local law enforcement agencies seized more than 19,000 ghost guns at crime scenes in 2021, a more than tenfold increase in four years.

In urging the court to uphold the ban, Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar argued the mail-order gun kits could “effectively nullify” gun laws dating to 1968 that allow police to trace weapons that are used in crimes.

Without the new regulations adopted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or ATF, “anyone could buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun in minutes — no background check, records, or serial number required,” she said.

California already prohibited the sale of these parts kits, but Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the federal ban was needed to enforce a ban on sending these kits through the mail.

Even though California has attempted to curb unserialized guns since at least 2016, he said these weapons accounted for nearly 30% of all guns recovered in the state by the ATF.

Meanwhile, the number of unserialized guns recovered by California law enforcement agencies increased from 167 in 2016 to nearly 12,900 in 2022, a 77-fold increase, the state’s attorney general said.

“This decision is not only a victory for California but for the entire nation,” Bonta said Wednesday. “This federal rule is crucial to keeping ghost guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals and critical to preventing and solving violent, firearm-related crimes.”

The conservative 5th Circuit court in New Orleans was undeterred by the warnings issued by police departments. It struck down the ATF regulation and ruled a “weapon parts kit” is not a firearm, even if it can be assembled into one.

The Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit ruling on hold last year and voted to hear the government’s appeal in the case of Bondi vs. VanDerStok.