Federal Judge Denies Trump’s Effort to Ban Transgender People From Military

The judge previously ruled that the ban likely violates constitutional rights to equal protection.

U.S. Army paratroopers assigned to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division board an aircraft bound for the U.S. Central Command area of operations from Fort Bragg, N.C., on Jan. 5, 2020. U.S. Army/Spc. Hubert Delany III/Handout via Reuters

A federal judge on March 26 denied the Trump administration’s motion to dissolve her order that prevents the Pentagon from blocking transgender people from enlisting in the military, which was scheduled to go into effect on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes filed a memorandum opinion and order on Wednesday denying the administration’s request to dissolve, or stay pending appeal, her March 18 preliminary injunction halting the new military policy.

The government filed an appeal after Reye’s Wednesday order.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” on Jan. 27 that says individuals “expressing a false gender identity” do not meet the standards for military service and that “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.”

On March 18, Reyes ruled that Trump’s order likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender-identifying active-duty service members who challenged the order and could cause them irreparable harm. She agreed to stay the preliminary injunction until March 21 to give the administration enough time to appeal.

“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes stated in a 79-page ruling.

During a March 21 hearing, Reyes requested that the Department of Defense delay its original March 26 deadline for instituting the policy.

The government filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21 and argued that the policy is not an overarching ban on transgender-identifying people but rather “turns on gender dysphoria–a medical condition–and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”

The administration also asked that if the motion to dissolve is rejected, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal. It also cited new guidance issued on March 21 that clarified that “the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria‘” only applies to “individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.’”

Reyes said she preferred to give additional time for the appeals process and said she had previously granted enough time to appeal her last opinion, stopping the ban from going into effect. She also acknowledged that the government’s cited guidance was new but that the defense’s argument was not.

“Defendants re-emphasize their ‘consistent position that the [Pentagon] Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition,’” Reyes wrote.

“Regulating gender dysphoria is no different than regulating bipolar disorder, eating disorders, or suicidality. The Military Ban regulates a medical condition, they insist, not people. And therein lies the problem.

“Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know,” Reyes wrote. “It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender, and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.”

Aldgra Fredly contributed to this report.