Washington — A federal judge ruled on Tuesday to block the enforcement of a newly established Defense Department policy that prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes approved a preliminary injunction requested by active-duty transgender service members and those in the process of enlisting. The judge’s order temporarily halts Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and military branches from executing President Trump’s executive order and supplemental guidelines that bar transgender individuals from military service.
However, the judge has postponed her order until March 21 to allow the Justice Department time to seek emergency relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Reyes, appointed by former President Joe Biden, made her ruling after conducting several hours of hearings earlier this month, during which she rigorously questioned Justice Department attorneys about the Defense Department’s rationale for the ban.
“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes articulated in her 79-page ruling, further stating, “The court’s opinion is extensive, but its core principle is straightforward. In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal,’ all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, one of the lead attorneys in the case, described the ruling as “decisive” and noted that it “speaks volumes.”
“The court’s clear factual findings expose how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have dedicated themselves to defending our nation. Considering the court’s straightforward assessment, we are confident this ruling will hold up on appeal,” Levi remarked in a statement.
This policy originated from an executive order issued by Mr. Trump in late January, instructing Hegseth to create a policy regarding transgender service members based on troop readiness. The order asserted that “the adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in their personal life. A man’s claim to be a woman, and the expectation that others should respect this falsehood, is not compatible with the humility and selflessness expected of a service member.”
The executive order also revoked measures introduced by President Joe Biden in January 2021 that permitted transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.
In response to Mr. Trump’s directive, Hegseth released a memorandum in early February that banned the recruitment of new service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria and temporarily halted gender-affirming care for transgender troops. The Pentagon later indicated in a document from late February that it would begin discharging transgender troops from military service within 30 days unless they received a waiver.
The memorandum stated that individuals diagnosed or with a history of gender dysphoria “are no longer eligible for military service.” It also required that pronoun usage for service members must align with their sex and prohibited the use of Pentagon funds for gender-affirming care.
The lawsuit brought before Reyes was filed in late January by a group of over a dozen transgender active-duty service members, one individual undergoing basic training in the U.S. Army, and five others in the process of enlisting. They contended that the ban was unconstitutional and sought a court order to prevent its enforcement.
In her ruling, Reyes determined that the challengers were likely to prevail on their claim that the ban does not meet the highest level of judicial scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, due to its classification based on sex and transgender status. The judge also concluded that the Trump administration’s policy is likely motivated by unconstitutional animus.
“The Military Ban is steeped in animus and laden with pretext,” she wrote. “Its language is overtly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender individuals as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
Reyes remarked that Mr. Trump and the Defense Department “could have developed a policy that balances the nation’s need for a prepared military with Americans’ rights to equal protection. They still can. However, the Military Ban is not that policy. Therefore, the court must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends daily.”
The judge stated that the government’s policy is “overbroad” and includes “derogatory generalizations about the various talents, capacities, or preferences of transgender individuals.” Such generalizations, Reyes noted, “do not suffice to demonstrate that a sweeping discriminatory ban is significantly related to military readiness and unit cohesion.”
The ruling from Reyes is expected to be challenged by the Justice Department, marking another legal setback for the Trump administration, as several of its policies have previously been temporarily blocked by federal judges. A second challenge to Mr. Trump’s military ban is currently progressing in Washington state.
Mr. Trump attempted to bar transgender individuals from military service during his first term in 2017, but an initial Pentagon policy was blocked by federal courts. The plan was subsequently revised in 2018 and was implemented the following year, remaining in effect until the arrival of the Biden administration.
