US District Judge Ana Reyes sided with the transgender plaintiffs and granted a preliminary injunction on Tuesday. In deference to the Military's position, Judge Reyes put the injunction on hold until Friday, giving the Trump administration (the defendants) an opportunity to file an emergency stay with the DC Court of Appeals.
Judge Reyes, wrote that the ban “is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
“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,” she wrote:
In Executive Order No. 14183, President Donald J. Trump focuses on “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The military’s “clear mission” is to “protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force.” Id. § 1. Service by transgender persons is “inconsistent” with this mission because they lack the “requisite warrior ethos” to achieve “military excellence.”
On February 26, 2025, Secretary of Defense Peter B. Hegseth issued a policy to EO14183’s directives. (Hegseth Policy). It disqualifies “[t]ransgender troops . . . from service without an exemption.”
"The President has the power—indeed the obligation—to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving. “[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.”
"First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve."
"Plaintiffs beg to differ. And differ they can. Together they have provided over 130 years of military service. They have served in roles ranging from Senior Military Science Instructor to Artillery Platoon Commander to Intelligence Analyst to Satellite Operator to Operations Research Analyst to Naval Flight Officer to Weapons Officer. They have deployed around the globe, from Afghanistan to Poland to Korea to Iraq to Kuwait to the USS Ronald Reagan and USS George W. Bush. One is presently deployed to an active combat zone."
"They have earned more than 80 commendations including: a Bronze Star; two Global War on Terrorism Service Medals; two Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medals; numerous Meritorious Service Medals; numerous Commendation Medals; Air and Space Outstanding Unit Awards; and the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, among many others," Judge Reyes wrote.
"Defendants rejoin that these service records are inapposite. The Court must ignore them and instead “defer to the military’s judgment.” Yes, the Court must defer. But not blindly. The President issued EO14183 within seven days of taking office, and Secretary Hegseth issued the Policy thirty days later. There is no evidence that they consulted with uniformed military leaders before doing so. Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data. They pronounce that transgender persons are not honorable, truthful, or disciplined—but Defense counsel concedes that these assertions are pure conjecture."
THE COURT: Is saying that transgender people or people with gender dysphoria, [that] their inherent identity is inconsistent with a commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, is that demeaning to them?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I don’t have a characterization for that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And if I asked you about all the other words in [the Military Ban], with respect to the characterization of transgender people or people with gender dysphoria, you would have the same answer?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honor
THE COURT: There’s nothing [supporting these assertions] in the studies; right?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That says those same things, no, Your Honor, not that I know of.
THE COURT: [No study] says anything close to those things; correct?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Not that I know of, Your Honor.
