Despite what some early headlines are saying, the U.S. Supreme Court has not upheld the Trump administration’s ban on transgender people in the military —at least not yet. There was a strong signal today that the Supreme Court is poised to do so: By a 6 to 3 vote, the court issued an order Tuesday afternoon that stays a national injunction against the ban until the constitutional issues can be fully litigated in the lower courts. By issuing the stay, the Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to enforce its ban until the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court can act on the constitutional issues involved.

If this feels like déjà vu, it is. During the first Trump administration, the Supreme Court also issued an order enabling a Trump directive —issued by declaration through a Twitter post— to take effect, pending a Ninth Circuit ruling on the constitutional issues. That vote in 2019, was 5 to 4 (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has since been replaced with Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett.)

Both Tuesday’s Supreme Court order and its actions in 2019 focused on servicemembers in Washington State and the Ninth Circuit. There were four pending cases in 2019, and three today.

The subject of the Supreme Court order May 6 is Shilling v. U.S., a case challenging Trump’s executive order entitled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven active duty transgender servicemembers, one transgender person who would like to serve, and the Gender Justice League. Federal district Judge Benjamin Settle in Seattle issued a stay of the Trump ban in March; and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request in April for relief from that stay.

The Trump administration applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency order to overcome the lower court stays. In response Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted that request, “pending the disposition of the appeal” in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.  Although no justice signed the order, it indicated three justices —Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Jackson— would have denied the Trump administration’s request.

President Trump’s executive order in January rescinded an executive order issued by President Biden in 2021, which undid Trump’s Twitter order. The Biden executive order declared “all qualified Americans” could serve in the military.

In 2019, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2019 that the Trump ban “must be evaluated … with the appropriate deference due to a proffered military decision.”

Two other legal cases have also been pushing back against the Trump ban. They are being jointly led by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD). The first of the three cases, Talbott v. U.S., in U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., led to a national injunction against the Trump ban taking effect. That was issued by Judge Ana Reyes, an openly gay appointee of President Biden. The second case, Ireland v. Hegseth, challenges the ban in federal court in New Jersey. A district court judge there ordered the Department of Defense not to enforce the ban.

GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi and NCLR attorney Shannon Minter, both transgender, issued a statement Tuesday said the Supreme Court’s order allowing the ban to take effect —even though preliminary— will have a “devastating” effect on transgender servicemembers.

“Today’s decision,” said Levi, in a statement for the press, “adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration.”

“It’s not the end of the case,” said Levi, “but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable.”