A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C. grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon's transgender military ban policy and a lower court's finding of animus behind the ban. (Getty)
D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status.
Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not.
"The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus," Manion responded.
Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand "does something that is so extraordinarily unusual."
"The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that," Minter said.
Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the "irreparable harm" the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes' order.
Manion argued that Reyes' order not only affects the military's competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president's constitutional powers.
Manion argued that the "main injuries" include the inability to enforce what the Department believes "to be a valid policy."
Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about.
"How has the military worked under a different policy?" Pillard asked. "It’s striking to me that the government…has not stymied that."
Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place "on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage."
At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by President Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness." (Getty imges)
At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness."
In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm" that would warrant a preliminary injunction."
The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21.
In the filing, the government 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."
After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes' request, Reyes denied the government's motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter.
Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this report.
Haley Chi-Sing is a politics writer for Fox News Digital. You can reach her at @haleychising on X.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/striking-dc-appeals-court-interrogates-trump-admin-pentagons-transgender-military-ban-policy