A federal judge has denied President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to lift an injunction that prevents the military from implementing a ban on transgender service members.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee based in Washington, D.C., refused to dissolve her previous order that blocks the Pentagon from denying transgender people the ability to enlist in the military.
The ruling comes as part of the ongoing legal battle in the case Talbott v. Trump, which challenges the constitutionality of the administration’s policy. The Department of Justice has since filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Judge Reyes previously determined that the ban was likely unconstitutional, noting that the government had failed to demonstrate how banning transgender service members would serve any legitimate military purpose. She has consistently expressed strong criticism of the administration’s policy throughout the hearings and in her written opinions.
The Pentagon had been set to enact the transgender military ban on Friday, but Reyes’ ruling prevents this from happening while the appeals process continues. On March 21, she had requested the Department of Defense delay its original March 26 deadline to implement the policy.
The core of the legal dispute centers on whether the policy constitutes discrimination against transgender individuals or whether it’s a legitimate restriction based on a medical condition. On March 21, the defendants in the case, including Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, submitted a motion to lift the injunction preventing the Pentagon’s ban. They claimed the policy is not a blanket prohibition but rather targets gender dysphoria, a medical condition, and does not broadly discriminate against transgender individuals.
In her ruling on Wednesday, Judge Reyes addressed this argument by distinguishing gender dysphoria from other medical conditions. She noted that the administration’s comparison of gender dysphoria to conditions like bipolar disorder or eating disorders was fundamentally flawed. According to Reyes, the crucial difference is that gender dysphoria uniquely affects transgender individuals, making a ban on this condition effectively a ban targeting transgender people.
The Trump administration had also requested that if the motion to dissolve was denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that clarified the application of the policy. According to this guidance, the phrase “exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria” would solely apply to “individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.”
Reyes acknowledged the new Military Department Identification Guidance (MIDI Guidance) in her decision but stated that while the guidance was new, the argument presented by the defense was not. She emphasized that she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process and noted that she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking 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 wrote in her earlier decision granting the preliminary injunction.
The tension between the court and the administration has been evident throughout the proceedings. On Saturday, Defense Secretary Hegseth criticized the judge on social media, suggesting that since Reyes was acting as a military planner, she should report to military bases to instruct Army Rangers and Green Berets on combat operations. His comments underscored the administration’s frustration with the court’s intervention.
Judge Reyes addressed the government’s position in her ruling, noting that they had effectively acknowledged the plaintiffs were exemplary soldiers who demonstrated that transgender persons possess the warrior spirit, health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline necessary for military excellence.
Addressing the broader context of her decision, Reyes commented on the heated public debate her opinion had generated and the expected appeal from the Trump administration. She reminded everyone that the service members themselves make such debates and appeals possible through their sacrifices, which give meaning to the phrase about “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” She concluded by thanking all service members.
A legal challenge is unfolding alongside a prominent Supreme Court case centered on transgender rights. The case, United States vs. Skrmetti, examines whether the equal protection clause, which mandates that the government treat individuals in similar situations equally, prevents states from allowing medical professionals to administer puberty blockers and hormones to support a minor’s gender transition.
According to the Pentagon’s proposed policy, service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria would be processed for separation, with the option to apply for a waiver on a case-by-case basis if there is a compelling government interest in retaining the service member. The policy would also direct the use of sex-based terms of address, standards, and facilities, and prohibit the use of Department of Defense funding for medical procedures related to gender dysphoria.
The Talbott v. Trump case involves six current military personnel and two aspiring recruits. These individuals represent every branch of the armed forces and have commendable service records.
“So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from defendants on this key question,” Reyes stated in her ruling, highlighting the government’s failure to address this critical point.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents several of the plaintiffs, praised Judge Reyes’ decision, stating that she had acted quickly to protect troops from the harmful effects of what Minter described as an irrational ban.
The Department of Justice has defended the administration’s actions throughout the case. With the appeal now filed, the legal battle is expected to continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
While estimates vary, there are believed to be between 2,000 and 15,500 transgender people currently serving in the U.S. military, out of approximately 1.3 million active-duty personnel.
