Anthony Ghiotto
Anthony Ghiotto

Tony Ghiotto is a Teaching Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He serves as the Lynn H. Murray Director of Advocacy and is the inaugural director of the Anderson Center for Advocacy and Professionalism. Professor Ghiotto teaches courses in foundational and advanced Trial Advocacy, Evidence, and Professional Responsibility. He also trains future lawyers in trial advocacy, appellate work, alternative dispute resolution, and professional ethics through innovative and nationally recognized advocacy programming. Outside of the classroom, he regularly writes and comments on national security matters and civilian-military relations. His scholarship has appeared in the Harvard National Security Journal, the Buffalo Law Review, the Syracuse Law Review, and the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

Professor Ghiotto is a graduate of the University of Illinois and Emory University School of Law. Prior to joining academia, he spent nearly 12 yeas as an active-duty judge advocate in the United States Air Force. During his time on active duty, he served as a chief of military justice, a military prosecutor, an Air Staff counsel at the Military Justice headquarters division, a deputy staff judge advocate, and as a staff judge advocate. Additionally, he deployed to Parwan Province, Afghanistan, where he represented the United States in over 100 detainee review board hearings and also performed special duties at the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Secretary's investigation of civilian causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by American Servicemembers. Professor Ghiotto graduated with Academic Distinction from the Air Force's prestigious Air Command and Staff College, where he received his master's in military operations and science.

Professor Ghiotto continued to serve after joining academia. He served as a deputy staff advocate in the Georgia Air National Guard and as both a staff judge advocate and as a military appellate defense counsel in the United States Air Force Reserves. He retired from the Air Force following his promotion to Colonel.

Columns by Anthony Ghiotto
Transgender Military Ban Updates, Part I: Dignity in the Record: What Talbott v. Trump Communicates about Transgender Service Members

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Tony Ghiotto discuss the D.C. Circuit’s June 1, 2026 ruling in Talbott v. Trump, situating it within the broader litigation landscape surrounding the executive order banning transgender military service and previewing a multi-part analysis of the three opinions issued by the court. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the ruling’s most significant contribution—shared across all three opinions, including the dissent—is its repeated affirmation of the dignity, honesty, and capacity of transgender service members, which they view as a meaningful judicial counternarrative to the administration’s animus-laden characterizations, even as they acknowledge the decision's narrow holding and limited broader implications.

Process and Prejudice: Implementation of the Transgender Service Ban

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the implementation of the Trump administration’s transgender military service ban, focusing on recent litigation, the Department of Defense’s discharge procedures, and the implications for equal protection claims. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the Pentagon’s unique and restrictive discharge process for transgender service members—particularly its denial of consideration of prior service and its uniform policies—reflects prejudice and animus, potentially strengthening constitutional challenges while also signaling a broader return to commander-centric military justice.

Probably Lawful but Definitely Awful: Deployment of Military Attorneys for Civilian Practice— Part Two in a Two-Part Series of Columns

In this two-part series of columns, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the growing and troubling practice of assigning military lawyers as prosecutors in federal courts and judges in immigration proceedings, viewing it within the broader pattern of militarization in civilian life under the Trump administration. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that this practice erodes crucial norms of civilian control over the military, threatens the legitimacy of the civilian justice system, and places military attorneys in ethically precarious roles for which they are often untrained—all of which risk long-term damage to democratic institutions and civil-military boundaries.

Probably Lawful but Definitely Awful: Deployment of Military Attorneys for Civilian Practice— Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns

In this two-part series of columns, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the Trump administration’s increasing domestic use of military personnel—particularly military attorneys (JAGs)—to enforce civilian law, highlighting legal concerns surrounding the Posse Comitatus Act. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue in Part I that while the use of JAGs as prosecutors and immigration judges may technically be lawful under limited congressional exceptions, it undermines civil-military boundaries and raises serious constitutional and due process concerns.

The Transgender Military Ban: Part II: Collateral Consequences for Mental Health Access and Lessons for Future Litigants

In this second of a two-part series, Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine the broader implications of the Trump administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from military service, focusing on the chilling effects on service members’ mental health care and how recent litigation (specifically Talbott and Shilling) may shape future legal challenges to executive control over the military. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the administration's policy undermines trust in mental health confidentiality and threatens military readiness, while also suggesting that recent court decisions could provide a legal framework for challenging discriminatory or overreaching uses of military power in the future.

The Transgender Military Ban: Part I: District Court Rejection of Deference and Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s Rejection of Judge Reyes

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto examine recent judicial rulings halting the enforcement of a Trump administration executive order banning transgender individuals from military service, focusing on the Department of Defense’s justification efforts and the constitutional Equal Protection challenges in Talbott v. Trump and Shilling v. United States. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the administration failed to provide evidence-based, reasoned justifications necessary for judicial deference, highlighting a broader pattern of executive overreach and attempts to discredit the judiciary rather than engage in the fact-based policy-making required to lawfully exclude transgender service members.

Do Ask, Do Exit or Mask: Transgender Service Members, the DOD Guidance on the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness Executive Order, and Why It Should Matter to Us All

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto analyze the impact of the Prioritizing Military Excellence Order, which restricts transgender military service, comparing it to past policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and detailing the order’s effects on transgender service members, military law, national security, and unit cohesion. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that the policy forces transgender troops to either leave service or suppress their identity, ultimately harming military readiness, morale, and legal integrity, and they advocate for legal challenges, state-level protections, and continued resistance to discriminatory policies.

Let’s Kill All the Lawyers: The Friday Night Massacre of Judge Advocates General

Illinois Law professors Lesley M. Wexler and Anthony Ghiotto discuss the unprecedented removal of top military legal advisors (TJAGs) by the Trump administration and its potential consequences for military legal independence, the rule of law, and democratic governance. Professors Wexler and Ghiotto argue that these firings undermine the TJAGs’ role as independent legal advisors, threaten adherence to military justice and international law, and could either facilitate unlawful actions or create a chilling effect on military lawyers, potentially threatening democracy and national defense.