A federal court has dismissed an equal protection claim brought by Jacob Guthrie, who was barred from enlisting in the U.S. Air Force due to a Department of Defense (DoD) policy against individuals with a history of bariatric surgery. The ruling, issued by Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh on August 5, 2026, affects Guthrie and potentially others who have undergone similar medical procedures and wish to serve in the military.
The case, known as Guthrie v. Hegseth (Civil Action No. 2025-2179), centers on a policy that disqualifies individuals with prior weight-loss surgery from military service. Guthrie argued that this policy violated his Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, but the court found that he failed to demonstrate that the policy lacked a rational basis.
Guthrie, who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in 2022, attempted to enlist in the Air Force a year later. After passing initial screenings, he disclosed his surgical history and was told he was disqualified under the DoD policy. Despite seeking medical waivers on three occasions, each request was denied. This led him to file a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense and other military officials, claiming the policy was unconstitutional and arbitrary.
The DoD policy in question categorically disqualifies individuals who have undergone bariatric surgery, citing concerns that such procedures cause permanent anatomical changes that could interfere with operational deployability. In his complaint, Guthrie argued that the policy was discriminatory and lacked justification, as he believed it unfairly targeted individuals with a medical history of weight-loss surgery.
In his ruling, Judge Sharbaugh agreed with the defendants' motion to dismiss Guthrie's equal protection claim, stating, "Guthrie fails to state a cognizable equal protection claim because he fails to plausibly allege the absence of any rational basis for the challenged policy." The court noted that under rational basis review, a classification need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
The court emphasized that the government has a strong presumption of validity in its classifications, and that Guthrie's complaint did not adequately show that there was no rational basis for the policy. The judge pointed out that the DoD's rationale—that bariatric procedures could affect deployability—was a plausible justification for the policy.
While the court dismissed Guthrie's equal protection claim, it did not address his other claims related to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which remain active. The ruling suggests that, while the equal protection claim was found lacking, there may still be avenues for Guthrie to pursue his case under the APA.
This decision is significant as it reinforces the military's authority to set medical standards for enlistment, particularly regarding surgical history. It highlights the challenges faced by individuals with certain medical conditions seeking to serve in the armed forces.
Moving forward, the ruling leaves open the possibility for Guthrie to continue his case regarding the APA claims, which could explore whether the DoD's policy was arbitrary or capricious. The court has allowed the defendants to file an answer to these remaining claims by August 19, 2026.
As for the potential implications of this ruling, it may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning military enlistment policies and medical disqualifications. The outcome may affect not only Guthrie but also others who have undergone bariatric surgery and wish to enlist in the military.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Guthrie plans to appeal the dismissal of his equal protection claim or if there are related cases pending that could influence this matter.