UPDATE: On March 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed Reyes’ preliminary injunction while it reviews the matter. The appellate court also said the stay could be lifted if the Department of Defense takes any negative action against a trans servicemember while the matter is being reviewed by the court.
A federal judge in D.C. this week rejected a renewed effort by the Trump administration to implement a ban on trans servicemembers.
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes rejected a request by government attorneys to “dissolve” her March 18 preliminary injunction, blocking the ban. Government attorneys said Defense Secretary Peter B. Hegseth issued guidance on March 21, clarifying that the ban targets a medical condition — gender dysphoria — and not trans servicemembers as a class of individuals.
In their March 21 legal pleading, government attorneys emphasized the ban is solely concerned with the “military readiness, deployability and costs associated with a medical condition.”
On March 26, Reyes rejected the government’s request to dissolve the preliminary injunction. She said the Trump administration’s proposed ban clearly targets transgender individuals, not a medical condition.
“Defendants cannot evade discriminating against transgender people simply by labeling the policy as addressing gender dysphoria,” Reyes wrote. “Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know. It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.”
Reyes also said the new Hegseth guidance is broad enough to ban trans servicemembers even if they don’t suffer from gender dysphoria.
“This litigation is not about a medical condition,” Reyes added. “A medical condition has not given its country decades of military service. Or deployed into combat zones throughout the globe. Or earned countless commendations. People have. A medical condition has not fought terrorism. Or analyzed intelligence. Or commanded platoons. People have. A medical condition has not been accused of lacking warrior ethos. Or been branded dishonorable, dishonest, and undisciplined. Or been threatened with the loss of livelihood. People have. Transgender people.”
Reyes also questioned the Defense Department’s proposed implementation plan. She said apparently some type of “gender police” will review medical files for signs of gender dysphoria, and require each of the estimated 1.3 million active-duty servicemembers to attest — at least once a year — whether they exhibit symptoms of gender dysphoria and turn themselves in if they do. Then, steps would be taken to discharge them.
Moreover, Reyes noted, the Trump administration will spend untold millions of dollars screening out transgender servicemembers to save $5.2 million per year by eliminating gender-affirming care coverage.
Reyes noted that Hegseth, himself, said the policy is a ban on trans servicemembers and blasted the negative characteristics the Trump administration has applied to transgender servicemembers.
“Characterizations such as lacking warrior ethos, discipline, honor, and integrity apply to people, not medical conditions. One does not say, for example, that those who suffer from bipolar disorder inherently lack warrior ethos, discipline, honor and integrity,” Reyes wrote in her March 26 ruling.
Reyes’ preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from enforcing the ban will take effect on March 28.
Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, denounced the government’s effort to dissolve Reyes’ preliminary injunction.
“This motion was nothing more than a last-ditch tactic to sow confusion and cause delay,” Minter said in a press release. “There is no way to defend a policy that seeks to recklessly discard thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated transgender servicemembers, many of whom have deployed to critical locations across the globe. The government has conceded it has no evidence to support its position and no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, called the Trump administration’s renewed anti-trans efforts “unthinkable.”
“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,” Levi said. “It is unthinkable that we would treat this way the brave individuals who sacrifice so much for our country.”
On March 26, the Trump administration filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the appellate court to dissolve Reyes’ preliminary injunction. As of presstime, the appellate court hadn’t issued a ruling.