It marks yet another attempt by Trump to undo policy enacted by the Obama administration, specifically when it comes to policies affecting the transgender community.
"The decisions imposing those injunctions are wrong, and they warrant this Court's immediate review", Francisco wrote Friday.
Except in rare cases, the Supreme Court usually waits to get involved in cases until both a trial and appeals court have ruled on the matter.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the administration carefully thought out its policy and has decided that limits on transgender troops are in the best interests of national security and the courts should defer to that judgment.
"There are thousands of transgender service members bravely serving the nation with distinction".
The Trump administration issued a memorandum that bars people with a history of "gender dysphoria", which would require medical treatment, from being admitted to the USA military "except under certain limited circumstances".
One of the lawsuits against the Pentagon policy has made its way to an appeals court, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices like to have issues percolate below so that they can benefit from the opinions of lower court judges.
The supreme court nearly always waits to get involved in a case until both a trial and appeals court have ruled.
"The military has been forced to maintain [its] prior policy for almost a year", Francisco lamented, noting that "absent this Court's prompt intervention, it is unlikely that the military will be able to implement its new policy any time soon".
The events giving rise to the government's appeals began in 2016, when then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that transgender individuals would be allowed to serve in the military. "The administration ought to be thanking them for their service - not trying to score political points by purging them from our military".
Attorney Peter Renn of Lambda Legal told the Washington Post Friday that "yet again, the Trump administration flouts established norms and procedures".
The judges said the new policy was essentially the same as the original ban, or was merely a plan to implement the original ban, which they had ruled would likely run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court denied that request. The appeals court has since ruled but the administration's request that the court hear the case stands.
