Federal judge blocks Trump’s trans military ban

Federal judge Washington DCblocked the Trump administration’s ban. Transgender Military Service members will issue a preliminary injunction on Tuesday to stop the policy from taking effect.

US District Judge Ana Reyes ruled on Tuesday Talbot v. Trump They found that the administration’s policies are likely to violate the constitutional rights of transgender service members, and that the government could not provide evidence that banning them would serve legitimate military purposes.

“The bottom ban evokes some dim-like words to target vulnerable groups in violation of the Fifth Amendment,” she wrote.

The suit came on behalf of 20 transgender people who are serving or preparing to serve armed services by the glad law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The decision marks a significant setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to remove transgender forces from service.

Reyes concluded that the administration’s policies implemented through Executive Order 14183 were likely to violate constitutional protections, and ordered the Department of Defense to maintain existing policies that allow transgender individuals to openly serve.

Page 79 opinionReyes said it was not only unconstitutional, but also a “solution that sought the problem.”

Reyes dismantled the administration’s justification for the ban, but she relied on “the generalization of the overlord” and said she “severely misquotes research and ignores data that supports data by transgender people.” The judge further stated that the policy was based on a “misleading generalization” about transgender forces and branded it as “a weak, dishonorable, undisciplined, bragging, selfish liar who is not worthy of physically and mentally service.”

“To be kicked like football with something that is owned by a team is the opposite of meaningful political force,” Reyes wrote, pointing to changing policies between administrations that have repeatedly improved the lives and careers of transgender service members.

The Trump administration argued that the ban was necessary for “military preparation, unit unit unity and cost reduction.” Reyes rejected writing that “one of these does not support the finding that the discriminatory measures employed (prohibiting transgender people from serving) are essentially related to achieving the ban’s goals.”

She also questioned the government’s claim that the ban was about cost reductions, noting that the military spends nearly eight times more on Viagra than transgender healthcare.

“For example, Viagra costs $41,000,000 for DOD in 2023 alone, eight times the amount of what DOD spends on transgender health care each year,” she writes.

“We argue that the same drugs (hormonal therapy) and surgeries (mastectomy, hysterectomy, genital reconstruction) that the accused claims are too expensive for non-transgender service members,” Reyes wrote. “But the Hegseth policy doesn’t ban those treatments. So why paying for hormone therapy for some military personnel, not other services? Because the policy clearly targets transgender healthcare costs. It’s based on irrational bias.”

In her ruling, Reyes also compared the ban to previous discriminatory policies that were hit by courts and stated that it was “based on irrational bias, like past efforts to exclude marginalized groups.”

Reyes emphasized that the constitution does not allow the government to legislate the fundamental rights of the group based on hostility towards them. “A sincere and personal opposition [to a group of people] When it comes to laws and public policies that have been enacted, the necessary consequences is to eliminate the condemnation of the state itself, which is to deny or condemn those whose freedom is denied immediately,” she writes. Obergefellv. Hodges.

She concluded her opinion by calling famous quotes about military service. Reyes said, “The Court will expand its gratitude to all current service members and veterans. Thank you very much.”

An injunction prevents the ban from coming into effect while the case progresses.

The court’s order prevents Defense Secretary Pete Hegses and other military officials from enforcing a ban that sought to expel transgender service members and ban new recruits. Reyes directed the Pentagon to notify all military departments of the judgment by 5pm on March 21st and to confirm with the court by 6pm that day. The ruling maintains policies that existed before Trump’s orders, including the Department of Defense directives to grant transgender services and medical access.

The injunction follows last week’s tense five-hour hearing, with Reyes repeatedly burning Justice Department lawyer Jason Mannion about the administration’s claims. On Wednesday, Manion seemed unprepared and struggled to respond as Reyes accused him of justifying the ban on “cherry picking” research and miscommunication of data miscommunication. The judge also highlighted contradictions in the Pentagon’s rationale, including the allegations that gender-affirming healthcare is too complicated for deployment, while other ongoing healthcare, such as the use of insulin, are routinely housed.

Until Monday, Reyes submitted to government teams with additional declarations, particularly from Hegus, on the scope of the military’s ban on transgender service members. She questioned whether Hegses had animus in the trans community when she amplified her tweet about the ban. The DOJ claimed that he didn’t mean what he said and that he used “shoneki.” Reyes told Manion that he should swear that in court documents to Hegses.

Monday, government Notified to the court They choose not to submit additional declarations to justify the ban, or instead choose to support the previous opposition overview. The government argued that the policy targets gender discomfort rather than transgender identity, but Reyes previously called the distinction meaningless given the drastic impact of the ban. The Pentagon had been voluntarily resigned or negatively removed from March 28th by transgender people, military people until March 26th.

The lead lawyer in the case, Jennifer Levy of Transgender and Queer Rights and senior director of NCLR legal affairs, Shannon Minter, welcomed the verdict as a key victory for transgender servicemen.

“Today’s decisive ruling is a ton of talk,” Levi said in a statement. “The court’s discovery of clear facts exposed the way the ban specifically targets and undermines brave service members who have committed to defending our country. Given the court’s clear assessment, I am confident that this ruling will be more robust to appeal.”

Minter highlighted the urgency of the court case.

“The courts acted quickly today to protect the military from the harmful effects of this irrational prohibition. It ended the careers of dedicated trans soldiers, created personnel gaps, and got others to play a key role. “Our plaintiffs include lifelong servicemen who fought in Afghanistan, come from multi-generational military families and have received honors like bronze stars.

Transgenders themselves Levi and Minter have spent more than 30 years litigating landmarks LGBTQ+Case. They led the legal battle against the previous transgender military ban in 2017 Doe v. Trump and Stockman vs Trumpsecuring a nationwide interim injunction that also blocked the ban.

“The president has the authority to highlight his duties in order to ensure military readiness, but leaders use concerns in military readiness to deny the privilege of serving marginalized people,” Minter said. Supporter. “[Fill in the blank] It is completely incompetent and hinders the effectiveness of combat. [fill in the blank] Disrupts unit aggregation and reduces military effectiveness. permission [fill in the blank] Serving undermines training, makes it impossible to adopt, and disrupts the military order. First, the minority, then the women in battle, and then the Gaze filled that void. But today our army is stronger and our country is safer for millions of such voids (and everyone else). ”

Orders are set to take effect at 10:01am on March 21, unless the High Court intervenes. The Department of Justice will appeal.

Editor’s Note: This story is under development and has been updated with additional reports.