Trump Administration Seeks to Lift Injunction on Transgender Military Ban, Citing New Guidance
The legal battle over the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict transgender individuals from serving in the military has taken a new turn, with the government requesting a D.C.-based federal judge to dissolve a previous injunction that blocked the Pentagon’s ban. In a recent filing, the administration argued that President Donald Trump’s executive order does not constitute an outright ban on transgender individuals, but rather focuses on gender dysphoria, a diagnosed medical condition, and therefore does not discriminate against transgender individuals as a class.
The government’s argument hinges on new guidance from the Department of Defense (DoD), which they claim clarifies that the phrase "exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria" solely applies to individuals whose symptoms are severe enough to warrant a formal diagnosis. They argue that this distinction is a "significant change" that justifies lifting the injunction.
According to the filing, a party seeking to dissolve a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a significant change in either factual conditions or in law that proves the continued enforcement of the order would be detrimental to the public interest. The Trump administration argues that the March 21, 2025, guidance meets this requirement.
The filing states that the court had previously construed the scope of the DoD policy to encompass all transgender service members or applicants. However, the new guidance emphasizes the government’s consistent position that the DoD policy is concerned with military readiness, deployability, and the costs associated with a medical condition that every prior administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.
In addition to requesting the dissolution of the injunction, the Trump administration also requested that, if the motion to dissolve was denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
During a hearing, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed federal judge, expressed concern about the timeline and requested that the Defense Department postpone the implementation deadline of the ban to allow for more time for the appeals process.
Judge Reyes emphasized her desire to avoid overburdening the D.C. Circuit, stating that her chambers worked diligently to issue an opinion on time. She urged government lawyers to persuade their clients to agree to the extension.
Reyes had previously issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, who include transgender individuals, stating that the plaintiffs face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm that warrants a preliminary injunction.
In her decision, Reyes stated that the President and Defendants could have crafted a policy that balances the nation’s need for a prepared military and Americans’ right to equal protection. However, she found that the Military Ban was not such a policy, and therefore, the court must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.
Reyes wrote that the court’s opinion is based on the fundamental principle that "all people are created equal," emphasizing that "all means all, nothing more, and certainly nothing less."
The case revolves around a January 27 executive order signed by President Trump, which directed the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously stated that the Pentagon would appeal Reyes’ decision, expressing confidence that they would prevail.
The legal battle over the transgender military ban has been ongoing for several years, with various court rulings and appeals. The Trump administration’s efforts to restrict transgender individuals from serving in the military have been met with strong opposition from LGBTQ+ rights advocates and civil liberties groups, who argue that the ban is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for transgender individuals who wish to serve in the military, as well as for the broader LGBTQ+ community. It highlights the ongoing debate over the rights and inclusion of transgender individuals in society, and the challenges of balancing military readiness with principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The government’s argument that the ban is based on gender dysphoria rather than transgender identity is a key aspect of the case. It suggests that the administration is attempting to frame the issue as a medical one, rather than a matter of discrimination. However, opponents of the ban argue that it is still discriminatory because it targets transgender individuals based on their medical condition, even if they are otherwise qualified to serve.
The court’s decision on whether to dissolve the injunction or stay it pending appeal will be closely watched by both sides of the issue. It could set a precedent for future cases involving transgender rights and military service. The case also underscores the importance of judicial review in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that government policies are consistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
