Judge Reyes BLOCKS Trump's Ban on Transgender Service Members

"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."

US District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes - a President Biden appointee - has issues a scathing order blocking the Trump administration from banning transgender people from serving in the military. She says in the ruling that the Executive Order and subsequent Pentagon policy are “soaked in animus,” unconstitutional, and based on manipulated data.

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.

She then outlines the plaintiffs’ exemplary records of service:

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.

But the Trump administration and the Pentagon are asking the court to ignore all that and trust their judgment. But because the administration didn’t lift a finger to consult with military leaders or cite any reliable data - the judge says the ban is based on animus and not evidence.

Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants agree. They agree that Plaintiffs are mentally and physically fit to serve, have “served honorably,” and “have satisfied the rigorous standards” demanded of them. Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have “made America safer.” So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from Defendants on this key question.

The Court’s opinion is long, but its premise is simple. In the self-evident truth that “all people are created equal,”5 all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.

She then points out that the transgender ban is based on zero study or analysis, and compares it to the paper straw ban - which presented multiple studies to justify bringing back plastic straws:

The Hegseth Policy also does not contain: (1) evidence that transgender persons are inherently unfit to serve; (2) evidence that being transgender is inconsistent with “honesty,” “humility,” and “integrity, (3) evidence that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” (4) analysis of whether the costs of discharging and replacing transgender servicemembers outweigh the costs of retaining them; (5) analysis of the effect on military readiness of losing thousands of servicemembers; or, among numerous other holes, (6) the criteria of “exhibiting evidence of gender dysphoria,” much less how such behavior will be policed. Defendants also concede that they have no post hoc evidence (assuming the Court could even consider it) to justify the Military Ban.

To contextualize this absence, consider, by contrast, Executive Order 14208, “Ending Procurement and Forced Use of Paper Straws.” EO14208 makes it “the policy of the United States to end the use of paper straws.” EO14208 provides clear and articulable reasons to support its conclusions. Paper straws: (1) “are nonfunctional,” (2) “use chemicals that may carry risks to human health,” (3) “are more expensive to produce than plastic straws,” (4) “often force users to use multiple straws,” and (5) “sometimes come individually wrapped in plastic, undermining the environmental argument for their use.” The White House also provided a fact sheet supporting EO14208, citing to multiple studies supporting these claims.

Presumably, a policy that bans transgender persons from military service—individuals who have served honorably and “made American safer”—should result from study at least comparable to one that bans paper straws.

Finally, the Trump administration said that if the court grants the injunction, it should only do so for the named defendants in this case. The judge says no way:

Defendants claim that any injunction must be limited to the Plaintiffs. It cannot be, rationally or logistically. Other transgender servicemembers face the same irreparable harms as Plaintiffs. Any transgender person affected by the Ban would need only to file a “me too” complaint in this Court to obtain the same relief. The Court and Defendants then would have to deal with a never-ending conveyor belt of claims. A limited injunction would also cause havoc for the Armed Forces. Some transgender persons would be permitted to serve and accede, others would not. Depending on what happened at the permanent injunction phase, one group or the other would be affected. Superiors and colleagues would need to keep track of ongoing litigation docket updates to understand who was covered. Notably, the government has reiterated that “uniformity” is one of the key goals of the Military Ban multiple times throughout this litigation.

She concludes:

The Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals. In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes. We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect. For, as Elmer Davis observed, “[t]his nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” The Court extends its appreciation to every current servicemember and veteran. Thank you.

She issued her subsequent order GRANTING the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Trump administration from carrying out its ban on transgender people in the military, but stays her own order until March 21st to allow the Trump administration to appeal. This Order will automatically go into effect, unless stayed by an appellate court, on March 21, 2025, at 10:01 am eastern.

You can read the full ruling here.

~AG