The Supreme Court gave the Trump administration what it wanted this week in United States v. Shilling: a green light to enforce its ban on transgender people serving in the military while litigation over the matter continues. There was no hearing. There were no oral arguments. There was no ruling on the constitutionality of the ban, which President Donald Trump issued in an executive order on January 25. The Supreme Court merely released a brief unsigned order, from which all three liberals dissented.

And just like that, the Trump administration may now prohibit transgender people from enlisting in the military and discharge those who are already serving. Up to 1,000 service members may be affected.

Trump has done this before. The president’s efforts to ban trans troops began in his first term, with a series of tweetstorms. In 2017, Trump claimed—without evidence—on Twitter (now X) that welcoming trans people into the military, a policy President Barack Obama approved in 2016, had created “disruption” and “tremendous medical costs.” The Supreme Court allowed Trump’s first-term trans troops ban to take effect in 2019.

Rewire News Group covered this story back then, too, and our reporting surfaced some key consequences of Trump’s trans troops ban. We spoke with transgender service members who were bewildered by the ban, examined the myriad legal challenges the ban faced, and observed that the effects of the ban wouldn’t be limited to the military.

1. Courts said gender discrimination needed to meet a high bar

Trump’s effort to ban trans troops from the military during his first term quickly prompted lawsuits. One was Karnoski v. Trump, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that the ban treated transgender people differently than other people, and therefore must be subject to a high level of judicial review. This meant that the government would have to provide credible justification to discriminate against trans people.

As Jessica Mason Pieklo explained in a legal analysis for RNG, the ruling in Karnoski was an important, if conditional, step forward for transgender rights. Though it wouldn’t last, the Karnoski decision set an important legal standard, especially for trans people living in conservative states covered by the Ninth Circuit.

“The appeals court made it clear … that a transgender person in Arizona has the same rights as a transgender person in California and that neither the government, nor anyone else subject to civil rights laws, can invent reasons to discriminate against transgender people and expect the courts to go along with it,” Pieklo wrote.

After three federal district courts—including the lower court whose ruling was reviewed by the Ninth Circuit in Karnoski—blocked Trump’s ban in 2018, the administration tried to repackage it as a matter of national security. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis issued policy recommendations arguing that trans troops posed a risk to military effectiveness. The administration then issued a new ban on trans troops based on those recommendations in 2018, citing concerns about military readiness and unit cohesion.

READ MORE: Transgender Rights Get Important Win in Ninth Circuit

The Supreme Court would ultimately take up Karnoski v. Trump. In January 2019, the justices ruled that the appeals court’s injunction should be lifted, allowing Trump to officially ban trans troops. However, the trans troops ban remained a procedural ruling; the justices allowed it to go into effect without issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of prohibiting transgender people from serving in the military.

2. Rationale for trans ban didn’t reflect reality

RNG interviewed two transgender service members affected by the first Trump administration’s ban. They were bewildered by the administration’s justification for removing them from service and concerned for their careers.

READ MORE: ‘I Would Like to Say It’s Ignorance’: Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Throws Careers Into Flux

“Being transgender had no impact on my ability to succeed at basic training,” a trans soldier named Lewis P., who requested that his full name not be used, told transgender journalist Serena Sonoma in an interview in January 2019.

“Being transgender was really a non-issue entirely,” he said. “I lived in a male squad bay and was respected and treated as a man. I did not have any problems with any of my battle buddies in my platoon in regards to my being transgender.”

Kathryn Goldston, a staff sergeant in the Texas Army National Guard served in the military for 13 years and came out as a transgender woman in 2017, told RNG that the ban opened the door to judge trans people and say they are less of a soldier than everyone else.

“And once that starts,” she asked, “what are they going to try to take away next?”

3. Trans bans affect all trans people—not just service members

What happens to trans people in the military can have broader societal repercussions for all trans people, Katherine Cross wrote in an August 2017 commentary for RNG.

In his 2017 tweet declaring that transgender people would no longer be allowed to serve in the military, Trump justified his decision with unsupported arguments that trans troops caused “disruption” and “tremendous medical costs.”

Pay attention to the message here, Cross wrote—because it doesn’t just apply to trans soldiers.

READ MORE: Missing From the Conversation: How Trump’s Proposed Military Ban Affects All Trans People

“After all, soldiers are among the most valued citizens in our warlike society (culturally, if not materially),” Cross wrote.

“If trans soldiers are an onerous burden,” she added, “then what does that make the trans sex worker fighting for relief from overpolicing? Or the single trans parent on Medicaid? Or the Black trans woman who must argue for her right to life? Or the transgender girl trying to go to class without being bullied?”

Trump was making federal policy based on the false notion that trans people are burdens, distractions, or mistakes, Cross wrote.

That kind of framing reinforces the idea that trans lives are optional, Cross said. And that is “but one broad step on the road to eradicating us.”