A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to lift a court order blocking its transgendermilitary ban, reinstating a preliminary injunction that protects active-duty and prospective service members from discharge.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes denied the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to dissolve the injunction she issued last week in Talbott v. United States, which halted enforcement of Executive Order 14183 and related Pentagon guidance targeting service members with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria.
Related: Federal judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban
Reyes had paused the implementation of her preliminary injunction, which was scheduled to take effect Friday at 10:01 a.m. The judge said she would allow the administration time to appeal. The DOJ responded with a filing last Friday claiming the Pentagon had issued new guidance limiting the policy to service members with a current medical condition, and not all transgender people. But Reyes was unconvinced.
She reaffirmed her finding that the Department of Defense’s justification for the ban was based on pretext and anti-trans animus. Attorneys for the plaintiffs—represented by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights—said in court that the government’s filing was a last-minute “shenanigan” meant to delay compliance and mislead appellate courts.
Related: Fireworks in D.C. courtroom as judge hears DOJ request to undo block on trans military ban
The administration had argued that newly issued “Military Department Identification Guidance” narrowed the ban to apply only to service members with a current medical condition and not all transgender people. But Reyes rejected that claim as “unpersuasive,” writing in a blistering 16-page ruling that the government’s arguments “did not sway the Court before; regurgitating them with the MDI Guidance is equally unpersuasive.”
“Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know,” Reyes wrote. “It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.”
Reyes sharply criticized the government’s attempt to reframe the policy as a neutral medical regulation, writing, “This litigation is not about a medical condition. A medical condition has not given its country decades of military service… People have. Transgender people.”
She also dismantled the Defense Department’s proposed implementation plan, noting that it would require all 1.3 million active-duty troops to self-report annually whether they have ever had, currently have, or exhibit symptoms of gender dysphoria—then be flagged as non-deployable and recommended for discharge. The judge compared the plan to “rummaging through private medical records” and called it “the process the MDI Guidance requires.”
“The government’s tactics are very questionable,” Shannon Minter, legal director of LGBTQ+ rights group NCLR, told The Advocate. “They seem designed to muddy the waters."
“These efforts to stall the preliminary injunction from going into effect to protect our transgender troops burden military families with a crushing amount of pressure as they navigate a limbo with outcomes that will cause devastating harms to the military careers of these incredible soldiers,” GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights Jennifer Levi said in a press release. “It is unthinkable that we would treat this way the brave individuals who sacrifice so much for our country.”
In her ruling, Reyes agreed. She found the policy to be discriminatory in both effect and intent, writing that the new guidance failed to provide any legitimate rationale and instead underscored the “animus” driving the ban. She added that the plan treats gender dysphoria more harshly than other conditions and “likely violates Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights.”
Though Reyes denied the government’s request to dissolve or stay the injunction, she granted a short administrative stay until Friday at 7 p.m. EDT to allow the DOJ time to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“This is all to the good,” Reyes wrote of the expected appeal. “But let’s recall that our servicemembers make the debate and appeals possible… The Court, again, thanks them. All.”
