A federal judge appeared reluctant March 12 to comprehend the legality of a Trump executive order that bans transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes repeatedly questioned the government’s lawyers for what she saw as problems with their arguments and competence in presenting the case.
Ana Reyes
The case, Talbott v. Trump, has 20 plaintiffs who claim they are experiencing harm as a result of the Jan. 27 ban, including paused deployments, forced administrative leave, delay or denial of essential medical care, and the possible end of their military careers.
Their lawsuit alleges Trump’s ban on transgender service members violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating against people “based on their sex and based on their transgender status.”
Plaintiffs are trying to convince the judge to stay the ban before it goes into effect later this month as scheduled.
Trump’s executive order directs the secretary of defense to adopt a policy that transgender identity is incompatible with “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.”
Judge Reyes questioned government lawyers about a post on X by the Department of Defense that was reposted by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”
That’s not what the executive order states, she noted.
“To the extent that trans-identifying persons would prefer to serve in the sex with which they identify even if they do not have gender dysphoria, that does not suggest that there is a categorical ban,” according to the motion in opposition. “In fact, such service members can continue serving under the standards of their biological sex.”
To that, DOJ lawyers said Hegseth’s repost should not be construed as expressing actual policy.
“Why shouldn’t I look at the words of the guy who issued the policy?”
“Why shouldn’t I look at the words of the guy who issued the policy?” the judge replied.
ABC News reported Judge Reyes said the government “egregiously misquoted” and “cherry picked” scientific studies to incorrectly assert that transgender soldiers decrease the readiness and lethality of the military.
“Let’s just use the Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s own words: Transgender people lack warrior ethos, are liars, lack integrity, are not humble, are selfish and can’t meet physical mental fitness requirements,” Reyes said during the hearing. “You would agree with me that calling people liars and lacking integrity and not able to meet rigorous standards for discipline is insulting — yes or no, or you can’t say?”
“Maybe,” the DOJ attorney responded.
“So, people with gender dysphoria can’t be honest, humble or have integrity. You think that’s demeaning to people with gender dysphoria?” Judge Reyes later asked.
“I can’t answer that question,” the attorney replied.
Jennifer Levi
Conservative evangelicals, who are driving the administration’s opposition to transgender people in all walks of life, deny gender dysphoria is real and deny transgender identity is real.
“The government presented no evidence to justify yanking qualified personnel from vital positions worldwide,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “We’ve seen plaintiffs abruptly removed from active combat deployments, specialized training operations and critical leadership roles despite meeting all standards. These service members, and many others, now find their careers suspended, creating dangerous gaps in our military and threatening national security.
“The American public should be deeply troubled by an administration willing to compromise military readiness to advance its hostility toward transgender people,” Levi added. “We remain hopeful the court will act swiftly to stop this senseless damage.”
Shannon Minter
Levi and Shannon Minter are lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case. Both attorneys are transgender. They led the legal fight in 2017 against previous Trump transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban. Minter works with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
“I wish every American could have been in court today to hear firsthand for themselves the government admit they have absolutely no evidence to justify this ban,” Miner said later. “For these service members to be put into this situation, where they are being separated from not just jobs, but a lifelong commitment to military service and to our country — and at the pace at which the government has so aggressively moved to implement this ban — the harms that they have suffered and are continuing to suffer are so disturbing. I can’t stress enough the severity of the harms and the extraordinary pressure that these individuals and their families are currently under.”
Judge Reyes is expected to issue her decision on a stay no later than March 25. The case is assigned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Related articles:
Disney, Christianity and the erasure of transgender people | Analysis by Mara Richards Bim
Georgetown dean fires back at Trump official who demanded curriculum changes
Trump’s actions face 96 court challenges; here’s where to track them