The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today reversed a lower court ruling that had struck down the military’s ban on enlistment of people living with HIV, reinstating the discriminatory policy.
The three-judge panel overturned the district court’s 2024 ruling that had declared Department of Defense (DoD) and Army policies barring all people living with HIV from military service unconstitutional. Citing deference accorded military decision-making, the Fourth Circuit held that the military has a “rational basis” for maintaining medical standards that categorically exclude people living with HIV from enlisting, even those with undetectable viral loads who present no health or transmission risk.
The Fourth Circuit had previously issued an order in December 2025 staying enforcement of the district court’s injunction while it considered the appeal, temporarily reinstating the ban. From August 2024 until that stay took effect, the military successfully accepted qualified individuals with well-managed HIV, proving that people living with HIV can serve effectively alongside their fellow service members. Today’s decision disregards real-world evidence and returns to outdated policies rooted in stigma rather than science.
“We are deeply disappointed that the Fourth Circuit has chosen to uphold discrimination over medical reality,” said Gregory Nevins, Senior Counsel and Employment Fairness Project Director for Lambda Legal. “Modern science has unequivocally shown that HIV is a chronic, treatable condition. People with undetectable viral loads can deploy anywhere, perform all duties without limitation, and pose no transmission risk to others. This ruling ignores decades of medical advancement and the proven ability of people living with HIV to serve with distinction.”
“As both the Fourth Circuit and the district court previously held, deference to the military does not extend to irrational decision-making,” said Scott Schoettes, who argued the case on appeal. “Today, servicemembers living with HIV are performing all kinds of roles in the military and are fully deployable into combat. Denying others the opportunity to join their ranks is just as irrational as the military’s former refusal to deploy servicemembers living with HIV.
BACKGROUND
The case, Wilkins v. Hegseth, was filed in November 2022 by Lambda Legal, Scott A. Schoettes, Esq., Peter Perkowski, Esq. of Perkowski Legal, PC, and Winston & Strawn LLP on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who could not enlist or re-enlist based on their HIV status and organizational plaintiff Minority Veterans of America (MVA).
Plaintiffs include Isaiah Wilkins, who was separated from the Army Reserves and disenrolled from the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School after testing positive for HIV; two other qualified individuals (using pseudonyms Carol Coe and Natalie Noe) denied military service based on HIV status; and MVA, whose membership includes people living with HIV who want to serve or rejoin the military.
The filing followed Lambda Legal’s earlier victories in Harrison v. Austin and Roe v. Austin, landmark rulings that ordered the DoD to stop discriminating against service members living with HIV. Following those decisions, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III issued a memorandum in June 2022 stating that individuals who are HIV-positive, asymptomatic, and have a clinically confirmed undetectable viral load will have no medical restrictions applied to their deployability or ability to commission based on their HIV-positive status. These groundbreaking rulings reflected the reality that HIV is a chronic, treatable condition, not a reason to discriminate.
In August 2024, a U.S. District Court struck down the policy barring all people living with HIV from joining the U.S. Armed Services, ruling that the policies are “irrational, arbitrary, and capricious” and “contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military’s own recruitment goals.”
The DoD appealed the decision, seeking to reinstate the discriminatory ban, and succeeded with today’s court ruling.
Read the Fourth Circuit Court’s ruling here: https://lambdalegal.org/legal_document/wilkins_us_20260218_decision/
Read more about Wilkins v. Hegseth here: https://lambdalegal.org/case/wilkins-v-hegseth/
Read more about Roe & Voe v. Austin here: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/roe-and-voe-v-austin
Read more about Harrison v. Austin here: https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/harrison-v-austin