Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Restrictions on Transgender Military Service
In a significant legal victory for transgender service members and advocates, a federal judge has temporarily halted the enforcement of former President Donald Trump’s restrictions on transgender individuals serving in the United States military. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, issued the injunction while a lawsuit challenging the ban proceeds through the courts. The ruling marks the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the rights of transgender people to serve their country.
Judge Reyes’s decision emphasized the importance of equal protection under the law, arguing that while a president has the authority to ensure military readiness, that power cannot be used as a pretext to discriminate against marginalized groups. She wrote that the military is made stronger and the nation is made safer by the contributions of diverse individuals, including minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ people.
The judge highlighted the "cruel irony" of the ban, noting that transgender service members have made significant sacrifices, including risking their lives, to protect the very rights they are now being denied. She questioned the justification for the policy, stating that the Defense Department had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.
The lawsuit challenging Trump’s policy was brought by a group of transgender service members and recruits who argue that the administration’s abrupt policy change was based on prejudice and lacked any factual basis. They also pointed to the "openly derogatory language" used by the Trump administration in its pronouncements about transgender people.
Trump’s executive order, issued shortly after he took office, asserted that the "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex" conflicts with the values of an honorable, truthful, and disciplined military lifestyle. To implement the order, the Pentagon barred transgender people from enlisting, stopped paying for certain hormonal treatments and gender confirmation surgeries, and began removing transgender service members from the ranks.
The policy included a provision for waivers, allowing some transgender individuals to remain in the military. However, these waivers were limited to those who had never attempted to transition and who adhered to the gender standards assigned to them at birth.
The Justice Department defended the policy, arguing that courts should defer to the judgment of military leaders regarding the cost-benefit analysis of allowing service members with gender dysphoria, which is the distress a person may experience when their assigned sex and gender identity do not match. A Justice Department attorney, Jason Manion, argued that the court should not "reassess the evidence" presented by the military.
Judge Reyes pushed back against this argument, stating that the court’s deference to the military should not be "blind." She criticized the government for failing to provide concrete data on the potential impact of Trump’s policy. The Justice Department cited a 2016 Rand Corporation estimate that between 1,320 and 6,630 of the 1.3 million active-duty service members were transgender.
The plaintiffs in the case include decorated military personnel, such as an Army major who received a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and an Army captain who had been invited to teach at West Point. The case also involves a petty officer whose double mastectomy was canceled shortly before the procedure was scheduled to take place.
The Pentagon had previously begun accepting transgender troops in June 2016, following a yearlong study that included a Rand Corp. report on 18 other countries that allowed transgender service. The study concluded that allowing transgender people to serve would have no adverse impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.
Trump’s initial ban on transgender service was blocked by judges in four separate lawsuits. The Supreme Court eventually cleared the way for a revised policy in January 2019, which barred transgender people from enlisting, participating in Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), or attending military academies.
President Joe Biden overturned Trump’s order during his first week in office, reinstating the policy of allowing transgender people to serve openly in the military. However, Trump reversed Biden’s order, effectively imposing another ban, prompting the latest lawsuit.
This legal battle underscores the ongoing debate over transgender rights and the role of transgender people in the military. The judge’s decision provides temporary relief for transgender service members, but the issue is likely to remain contentious as the lawsuit continues. The eventual outcome of the case could have significant implications for the future of transgender military service and the broader fight for LGBTQ+ equality. The ruling serves as a reminder that the fight for equal rights and protection under the law requires constant vigilance and legal challenges to policies that are perceived as discriminatory. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against government overreach.
