A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of President
The decision Tuesday by US District Judge
The judge, a Biden appointee, said the government failed to show that it will be harmed by the status quo during litigation, while the plaintiffs presented extensive evidence that the ban would cause them “irreparable harm.”
“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes said.
The ruling is the latest legal setback for a slew of Trump executive orders, which seek to unilaterally reshape the government, slash federal spending and curb immigration at breakneck speed. Judges in multiple cases have held that the plaintiffs are likely to win on claims that Trump’s actions have violated federal law or infringed on Congress’ power.
Reyes said in her ruling that the government had not presented evidence supporting Trump’s claim that transgender service members undermine the readiness of the military — a claim the US previously made to support past restrictions based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness,” the judge wrote. “At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving.” She added that her injunction was necessary “to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”
‘Irreparable Harm’
The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
The suit was filed by nearly two dozen transgender active duty service members and potential recruits. The group includes career military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, service members from multi-generation military families, and some who received honors like the Bronze Star.
“The court acted quickly today to shield our troops from the harmful effects of this irrational ban,” said
Read More:
The executive order signed by Trump on Jan. 27 is part of his broader effort to scrap legal protections granted in recent years to trans Americans, including active duty, access to bathrooms and sports teams. Transgender minors and advocacy groups have sued Trump to invalidate his broad ban on gender-affirming care for people under 19.
Earlier administrations removed barriers to service by transgender troops after determining that they could serve effectively, without undermining military readiness.
Trump’s order calls into question those earlier findings, suggesting they were part of an effort to assert “radical gender ideology.” His order says that maintaining “high standards for troop readiness” is inconsistent with the “medical, surgical and mental constraints” on people with gender dysphoria, a condition that trans people are often diagnosed with.
“Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, 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 one’s personal life,” Trump’s order said.
‘Military Judgment’
The Justice Department said in a filing earlier this month that judiciary rules call for judges to be “highly deferential” to military decision-making. The government said the situation isn’t any different from the military’s practice of rejecting service by individuals with mental health conditions.
“In any context other than the one at issue in this case, DoD’s professional military judgment about the risks of allowing individuals with physical or emotional impairments to serve in the military would be virtually unquestionable,” the US said.
The judge disagreed, writing that US leaders for years had used generic arguments to disqualify whole groups of minorities from service.
“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” Reyes wrote.
“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank,” she said. “Today, however, our military is stronger and our nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.”
The case is Talbott v. Trump,
(Updates with comment from a representative for the plaintiffs.)
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Steve Stroth, Anthony Aarons
© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.