A federal judge denied President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to ban transgender people from joining the military, which was set to go into effect Friday.
The Department of Justice has since filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia.
Washington, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, on Wednesday, denied the government’s motion to dissolve her order that prevents the military from denying transgender people the ability to enlist in the military.
Reyes presided over a hearing on March 21, when she requested the Department of Defense (DOD) delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.
On March 21, the defendants in the suit, who include Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction blocking the Pentagon’s ban. The filing argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”
The Trump administration further requested that, if the motion to dissolve is denied, the court should stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
The government cited new guidance issued March 21 that it expected to enact the policy if not for the ongoing litigation. The guidance clarified that “the phrase ‘exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria’” solely applies to “‘individuals who exhibit such symptoms as would be sufficient to constitute a diagnosis.'”
Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.
On Wednesday, Reyes acknowledged that Military Department Identification Guidance (MIDI Guidance) is new, but the argument presented by the defense is not.
“Defendants re-emphasize their ‘consistent position that the [Hegseth] Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition,’” the judge 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 continued. “It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.”
She later noted that the opinion has generated a heated public debate, and, as the court predicted, the Trump administration will appeal.
“This is all to the good,” Reyes said. “But let’s recall that our service members make the debate and appeals possible. Their sacrifices breathe life into the phrase, ‘one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ The Court, again, thanks them all.”
The legal challenge comes as the Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights.
The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.
