A federal judge in Washington state has ordered the Trump administration to immediately disclose any plans to implement its sweeping ban on transgender service members, marking a significant development in Shilling v. Trump, one of the ongoing legal battles challenging the administration’s efforts to kick out trans troops from the military.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
In a minute order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington directed the federal government to notify both the court and plaintiffs if the Department of Defense—or any of its branches—issues any policy or guidance enforcing the challenged executive orders impacting transgender service members. The court further ordered the administration to inform plaintiffs before making any changes to their status quo.
Related: Trump administration says trans service members have until March 26 to quit Air Force
The lawsuit, Shilling v. Trump, was brought by the Human Rights Campaign and Lambda Legal on behalf of transgender service members, challenging the administration’s attempt to roll back their right to serve openly. It is one of multiple legal challenges to the administration’s crackdown on transgender military personnel.
In a court filing late Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice notified the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington that military branches and top Pentagon officials have issued at least nine policy documents since late January. These include guidance from the Departments of the Navy, Army, and Air Force—each detailing restrictions on transgender personnel—along with multiple directives from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth prioritizing what the administration calls “military excellence and readiness.”
Among the disclosed documents is a January 28 Navy memorandum outlining how recruiters should process applicants identifying as transgender, a January 31 directive from the Secretary of Defense titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and a February 4 Air Force memorandum detailing the branch’s implementation of that directive. A February 4 Army directive follows suit, outlining the implementation of the administration’s gender policy, while a February 7 Army executive order imposes new restrictions on transgender service members.
Additionally, a February 7 directive from the Secretary of Defense formally prioritizes the administration’s broader military policy objectives. The filing also lists a February 14 Army order amending its previous directive, a February 26 memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense that provides “additional guidance” reinforcing these policies, and a February 28 memo clarifying that guidance further. Finally, a March 1 Air Force memorandum outlines additional instructions for implementing Executive Order 14183 by encouraging transgender service members to quit voluntarily.
Another case, Talbott v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, has similarly challenged the administration’s actions. In that case, the Pentagon disclosed the March 1 Air Force memorandum urging transgender service members to voluntarily separate from the Space Force and Air Force by March 26 or face an uncertain future. That directive also revoked previous waivers allowing transgender personnel to adhere to grooming, fitness, and uniform standards aligned with their gender identity and barred access to most gender-affirming medical care. The government also admitted in that case that the Department of Defense doesn’t track people by gender identity, raising questions about the justification for the ban.
Related: Trump administration admits to judge it doesn’t know how many troops are trans—or why it’s banning them
A hearing in Talbott v. Trump is scheduled for March 12, where GLAD and NCLR will seek an emergency injunction to halt the administration’s policy before it goes into effect.
The Trump administration has attempted to justify these actions under the guise of military readiness, but in recent court filings, it conceded that the Department of Defense does not track how many transgender individuals serve in the armed forces—raising questions about the rationale behind the ban.
Settle’s order in Shilling v. Trump now places a legal check on the administration. The court also signaled its willingness to take swift action, saying it would entertain a motion for a temporary restraining order should the administration act against the plaintiffs before a full hearing on a preliminary injunction.
