A significant ruling came from a federal judge in Washington on Tuesday, as Judge Ana C. Reyes blocked the Trump administration's attempt to prohibit transgender people from serving in the military. The judge determined that the proposed ban violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding LGBTQ+ rights within the armed forces.
Judge Reyes issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Defense Department from implementing a new policy aimed at removing transgender personnel from military ranks. This ruling came in response to a policy announced last month, which followed an executive order signed by former President Donald Trump in January. In that order, Trump controversially referred to being transgender as a “falsehood” inconsistent with the “humility and selflessness required of a service member.”
In her ruling, Judge Reyes, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, criticized the administration’s assertions that transgender individuals lack honor and discipline. She described such claims as “pure conjecture” and pointed out that the executive order and the subsequent Defense Department policy failed to provide any substantial evidence supporting the notion that transgender military service undermines military readiness.
“Plaintiffs face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm,” Reyes stated. She further asserted that “avoiding constitutional violations is always in the public interest,” underscoring the broader implications of the ruling.
Reacting to the ruling, Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, remarked that the decision “lays bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation.” Levi expressed confidence that the ruling will withstand any potential appeals.
The legal challenge initiated by eight plaintiffs—six service members and two individuals aspiring to join the military—sought to contest the legality of Trump’s order. Since the filing, a dozen more individuals, including nine active-duty personnel, have joined the lawsuit, which is one of several actions taken against the Trump administration’s initiatives aimed at rolling back LGBTQ+ rights.
Shannon Minter, the legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, stated that the plaintiffs were “so relieved,” highlighting the immense stress and pressure they have experienced. “This gives them a moment to breathe. They so much want to continue their military careers and continue serving,” Minter added.
The Pentagon’s memo, released in late February, indicated that troops with gender dysphoria or a history of it would be separated from service, reversing previous policies that prohibited discrimination based on gender identity. Although none of the plaintiffs have been separated under this policy, they reported various negative impacts, including being placed on administrative leave or having contracts canceled.
One plaintiff, a transgender woman and staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Special Forces, detailed her abrupt removal from deployment, stating that the ban would lead to her separation by April 26. She expressed concern over the detrimental effects on her unit’s readiness, highlighting that her removal left them operating with one less medic.
Since 2016, when the Obama administration repealed the ban on transgender military service, openly transgender individuals have been allowed to serve. Prior to this change, the military viewed transgender individuals as unfit for service. According to a senior defense official, fewer than 6,000 active-duty or reserve members have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria since then, with approximately half undergoing hormone therapy and about 1,000 pursuing transition surgery.
Notably, the military has invested approximately $52 million since 2014 on various healthcare needs for transgender service members. In contrast, Reyes pointed out that in 2023, the Defense Department spent around $41 million on Viagra compared to an estimated $5.2 million for gender-affirming care.
During a recent hearing, a lawyer from the Justice Department argued that the new policy enforced a disqualification based on medical conditions. However, Judge Reyes dismissed the government’s evidence as “meaningless,” noting the lack of context regarding the overall non-deployable percentage of military personnel.
Furthermore, Reyes highlighted that a study cited by the government suggested transgender service members were not only deployable but often had fewer service lapses compared to other troops diagnosed with depression. This contradicted the administration’s narrative and supported the argument for the fitness of transgender individuals in military roles.
Judge Reyes acknowledged the gravity of her decision, stating, “You’re asking me to enjoin the president of the United States and the secretary of defense.” With the Defense Department given until March 21 to respond, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications for transgender rights within the military and beyond.
