A federal judge this week blocked the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military until a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban can be decided.
In a 79-page opinion issued, U.S. District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes for the District of Columbia blasted the ban and questioned its constitutionality.
“The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” the judge wrote. “Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
On Jan. 28, numerous trans service members and recruits filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the ban. They named various military officials as defendants, including Peter B. Hegseth, who is Secretary of Defense. Reyes is handling this lawsuit.
On March 18, Reyes issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the ban. The injunction, however, is paused from taking effect until March 21 to give the government time to file an emergency stay at a higher court, according to Reyes’ decision.
“The court does not issue this preliminary injunction lightly,” Reyes wrote, adding that she must uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends on a daily basis.
In January, President Trump issued an executive order, claiming transgender troops would disrupt the military’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Reyes called the Trump administration’s anti-trans policies “illogical,” and said they’re based on “derogatory characterizations” and “soaked in animus” toward the transgender community.
In February, the Defense Department issued new policies reflecting Trump’s executive order. The policies required all transgender troops to be forced out of the military beginning March 26.
According to published reports, the military had already started to coerce some trans members to leave. For example, they’ve been forced to use the pronouns and conform to the grooming standards of their birth sex, and they’ve been denied medical care, passed over for assignments, sent home from deployments and put on administrative leave.
In her opinion, Reyes said “transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence.”
Reyes’ opinion notes that in 2014, the Obama administration allowed for the open service of trans service members. In 2017, the Trump administration attempted to ban trans service members. But that effort was blocked in court because GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights secured a preliminary injunction that remained in effect until 2019.
In 2021, the Biden administration allowed for the open service of trans service members. But on Jan. 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order — mandating a complete purge of trans troops.
Reyes expressed strong concern with President Trump’s executive order.
“If the military ban goes into effect, it will upend lives and ruin the careers of thousands of [trans] persons,” Reyes wrote. The judge said trans service members would be deprived of a steady income and medical care.
Reyes also said the government hasn’t provided her with evidence that trans troops negatively impact the military, and called the government’s anti-trans policies “illogical.”
Her ruling emphasizes the positive contributions of trans individuals. She indicated that a blanket ban of trans service members would be unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex.
Moreover, Reyes opined that being transgender could be considered an immutable characteristic that has nothing to do with troop readiness; unit cohesion, good order and discipline; privacy concerns; and saving costs.
The Trump administration policy against service members using their chosen pronouns “makes no sense as written,” Reyes added.
Reyes questioned whether the military ban would pass constitutional muster.
“The Military Ban is also unique [among anti-trans government initiatives] in its unadulterated expression of animus — an expression of animus that no law the Supreme Court has struck down comes close to matching,” the judge wrote.
In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would consider whether a ban on trans service members would be constitutional. But the case before the high court became moot after President Joe Biden allowed for the open service of trans service members in 2021 — leaving the constitutionality issue unsettled.
Reyes noted that President Trump’s anti-trans executive order didn’t occur in a vacuum, citing “the flurry of government actions directed at transgender persons — denying them everything from necessary medical care to access to homeless shelters.”
Reyes also blasted the Trump administration for deleting references to trans people from New York’s Stonewall National Monument website.
Jennifer L. Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, expressed agreement with the ruling. “I am thrilled with the decision issued by the D.C. Court,” Levi said in an email. “The incredibly courageous servicemembers I represent want nothing more than the chance to continue serving and protecting the nation. The Court’s Order ensures that they and the thousands of other transgender people serving across the nation and around the globe can do just that. The Court closely scrutinized the evidence before it and rejected all of the justifications offered by the military for a purge of transgender people from service. These are people who prove their dedication and commitment by their medals, deployments, and years of exemplary service. They just ask that the Trump Administration be kept from preventing them from performing their duties. And this Court has made that happen.”
Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, echoed those sentiments.
“The court acted quickly today to shield our troops from the harmful effects of this irrational ban,” Minter said in a press release. “It would have ended careers of dedicated transgender service members and created personnel gaps, leaving others to fill critical roles. The ban’s harmful impact and rushed implementation show that it was motivated by prejudice. Our plaintiffs include lifelong military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, come from multi-generation military families, and have received honors like the Bronze Star. This ban is unjustifiable and attacks brave servicemembers, recruits, and families who sacrifice so much for our country.”
Attorneys for the U.S. government did not immediately respond to requests for comment.