U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction in favor of a group of transgender active-duty service members who challenged the order. Reyes ruled that the ban likely violates their constitutional rights and could cause them irreparable harm.
“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed—some even risking their lives—to uphold the very equal protection rights that this military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes stated in a 79-page ruling.
The judge granted a temporary stay on the injunction until March 21 to allow the administration time to appeal
Reyes highlighted that the plaintiffs’ service records demonstrate that “transgender individuals can embody the warrior ethos, physical and mental resilience, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline essential for military excellence”—a point even the administration has acknowledged.
“Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have ‘made America safer.’ So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Defendants have no answer,” Reyes added.
Jennifer Levi, an attorney with GLAD Law representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling, calling it a decisive stance against a policy that targets dedicated service members.
“The Court’s clear and factual findings expose how this ban specifically undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation,” Levi said in a statement. “With such a strong legal foundation, we are confident this ruling will hold up on appeal.”
The Epoch Times reached out to the White House for comment but received no response before publication.
The lawsuit, filed on January 28, involves 20 active-duty service members and transgender individuals seeking to enlist. They argue that Trump’s executive order violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
“Rather than serving any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects hostility toward transgender individuals based on their identity,” the plaintiffs stated in their filing.
Attorneys general from 20 states submitted an amicus brief in support of blocking Trump’s order
Arguing that the ban is unconstitutional and poses a risk to national security.
Trump’s order, issued on January 27, asserts that individuals “expressing a false gender identity” do not meet military standards and that adopting a gender identity inconsistent with one’s sex contradicts the values of honor, truthfulness, and discipline.
The order states that military standards must not be “diluted to accommodate political agendas or ideologies that undermine unit cohesion.” It also cites concerns over “medical, surgical, and mental health limitations” associated with gender dysphoria, aligning with Department of Defense (DOD) policies that require service members to be free of medical conditions that could lead to excessive absences for treatment.
The directive instructed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to end the use of “invented and identification-based pronouns” within 60 days and mandated the segregation of male and female service members in sleeping, changing, and bathing facilities.
Following the order, Hegseth issued a policy on February 26 stating that service members and military applicants with gender dysphoria are not fit for military service.
The policy memo directed the Pentagon to develop a system by March 26 to identify troops with a current or past diagnosis of gender dysphoria or symptoms consistent with the condition.
The Pentagon on June 25th will begin separation proceedings for those individuals.
The U.S. military currently has around 1.3 million active-duty personnel. Records according to the Department of Defense. While transgender advocates estimate that up to 15,000 service members identify as transgender, officials suggest the actual number is in the low thousands.
