Military HIV enlistment ban upheld by 4th circuit

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the military’s categorical bar on enlisting individuals with HIV, ruling that the policy is constitutionally valid and not arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The 4th Circuit reversed a district court injunction and directed that judgment be entered in favor of the military.

The plaintiffs—three individuals with asymptomatic, well-managed HIV and an advocacy organization—challenged Department of Defense and Army regulations classifying HIV infection as a disqualifying condition for enlistment. Although the individual plaintiffs maintained undetectable viral loads through daily medication, they were denied enlistment or reenlistment. They argued the exclusion violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement of the policy.

The 4th Circuit reversed. It held that classifications based on HIV status are subject to rational basis review and that, in the military context, courts must apply that standard with “great deference” to Congress and the Executive. Citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent emphasizing judicial restraint in matters of military structure and national security, the court concluded that review is at its height of deference when assessing force readiness and deployment decisions.

Applying that framework, the court identified several rational bases for the accession ban. Individuals with HIV require uninterrupted daily medication and regular laboratory monitoring, which may be difficult to guarantee in austere or forward-deployed environments. They are ineligible to participate in the military’s battlefield “walking blood bank” system. Certain host nations restrict entry of individuals with HIV, creating diplomatic and operational concerns. The government also presented evidence of significant recurring medical costs. Any one of these justifications, the court held, satisfied rational basis review.

The 19 page opinion is Wilkins v. Hegseth, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-050-26.