GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content

GLAD

GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

Search

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Contempt of Court

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

Because I work with some of the best legal minds out there, many friends, community members – even strangers – often turn to me for answers. After learning what I do for a living, they turn to me to give them hope and reassure them that our legal system will make certain justice and order prevail. Sometimes, they ask the impossible.

Now, we are nearly 100 days into Trump’s second presidency, and I’m noticing many more people expressing the fear that we are inching closer – or have already crossed – into constitutional crisis. I am also witnessing them process their grief in real-time as they reconcile feelings related to the current state of affairs – the weight of what someone recently described as the “eroding norms of our former democracy” displayed on their face.

One of the questions I am asked most often is related to our checks and balances: What happens if the President defies the courts? In other words, what if two branches of government are at a standstill because the executive is deliberately unwilling to respect the role of the judicial?

The Constitution has checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Article Three establishes the judicial branch and the courts. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have reaffirmed the courts’ power to interpret the law and declare actions as unlawful or unconstitutional. Yet the process of ensuring compliance with a court’s decision remains more nebulous.

Historically, the executive branch’s deference to the courts has helped uphold their role as arbiters of justice and judicial review. When things are working how they should, the executive and legislative branches of government comply with a court’s decision – even if they disagree. It’s why President Biden couldn’t implement his student loan plan or why, despite his personal opinion, President Eisenhower honored his duty to desegregate schools after Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent federal court orders. While they may have vehemently disagreed with the court’s decisions, they respected its authority. Upholding the judiciary’s legitimacy has been a longstanding norm – it’s a presidential tradition.

But today, that tradition is unraveling, placing us in a precarious moment. The current President has publicly questioned the credibility of judges and framed their decisions only as legitimate when they support his plans and fall along partisan lines. Most concerning are recent cases in which the Administration appears to be ignoring court orders. So, what are the courts to do in cases like these?

Judges have the power to hold parties in contempt of court. Contempt is an act of defiance or disrespect towards a court ruling. When someone is found in contempt, a judge can enforce stricter orders, like court oversight, monetary fines, and even jail. They can also sanction attorneys who mislead the court or assist in defying court orders. Recently, the District Court for the District of Columbia found probable cause to hold Administration officials in criminal contempt for violating its order to turn around a plane flying immigrants to an El Salvador prison.

If the courts exhaust those options, they can call on U.S. Marshals to help enforce court orders. However, the Marshals operate under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General, who may be unwilling to participate in enforcing a court order not favorable to the Administration.

While all of this is undoubtedly alarming, there is a sliver of hope. The Administration’s recent defiance is not outright – not yet. Their responses often come in the form of cleverly manipulated interpretations of court orders, designed to twist the truth and allow for optical control. While their view of the orders may reek of bad faith, it still suggests that they see some line the American people won’t allow them to cross – that they can’t just assert the blatantly unconstitutional power to ignore the courts.

So, what other guardrails exist to prevent us from succumbing to fascism?

Congress, the third branch of government, has the power to pass laws and monitor and investigate the executive branch’s activities. But, out of fear or unquestioning loyalty to the President, and with the convenient excuse of a narrow margin in both the House and Senate, some members of Congress are refusing their responsibility to the Constitution and their constituents and giving up their power to scrutinize the Administration’s actions.

The short answer is we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But that doesn’t mean we can’t get creative and innovative about the ways we push back.

At a time when we have limited institutional power, GLAD Law has embraced a strategy that exposes the cracks in a broken system, delays harmful policies from going into effect, counters efforts to further divide us, and uses all aspects of law to uphold liberty, equality, and democracy.

Ultimately, the government’s power comes from the people. And we have already seen this Administration back down and accept limits when public outcry demands it. The people may ultimately be the ones who adjudicate justice with their voices and actions. We just need to continue showing up – protesting peacefully, with our wallets, through the power of our votes, and protecting our neighbors. Already, people are thinking creatively. The hands-off nationwide protests, the upcoming Law Day of Action, and the economic boycotts earlier this year are just a few reminders that, despite the hostile landscape, we are not powerless.

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Setting the stage for SCOTUS

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

The battle for fundamental rights and protections has been waging for decades, and the United States Supreme Court has remained influential on the battlefield.

Supreme Court cases centered around LGBTQ+ rights are rare and typically focus on individual rights, due process, and equal protection. Over the past 40 years, the Supreme Court’s decisions on LGBTQ+ cases have shifted from upholding sweeping laws that criminalized “homosexual conduct” to maintaining that federal law protects LGBTQ+ employees from discrimination.

Each year, the Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases but usually takes fewer than 100. The justices vote on which ones to hear. If at least four justices agree, the case moves forward – this is known as the “rule of four.” But it’s a tradition, not a rule. The Constitution sets only limited guidelines for what kinds of cases the Court must hear, but it often takes cases that are of national significance or involve disagreements in lower federal courts.

This term, the Court is hearing many cases that will impact Americans’ daily lives and the future of our democracy. Three of the cases are particularly consequential for LGBTQ+ Americans’ ability to live freely and access life-saving care.

  • U.S. v. Skrmetti: The Court is reviewing an appeals court ruling that let Tennessee and Kentucky enforce bans on transgender health care while lawsuits against the bans continue. The key question is whether blocking transgender adolescents from accessing health care violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
  • Mahmoud v. Taylor: The Court will consider a lower court decision that said there wasn’t enough evidence that parents’ inability to opt their children out of seeing LGBTQ-themed storybooks burdened their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
  • Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.: The Court will review a ruling that struck down a key part of the Affordable Care Act. The lower court said that insurance companies don’t have to cover preventative health care services like PrEP – a drug that reduces the risk of HIV transmission by close to 100% – without out-of-pocket costs.

The opinions in these cases will have a lasting impact on the lives of LGBTQ+ people. They will shape public policy, establish good or bad precedents, impact whether we can access the health care we need, and determine if books featuring LGBTQ+ characters and stories could be banned in some schools based on the claim of religious freedom.

If the issues central to the cases give you déjà vu, it’s likely because these topics have been fought for decades. For nearly 50 years, we have fought to raise awareness, fight stigma, and remove barriers to health care. We demanded action by the federal government to address the AIDS epidemic and remove homosexuality from the international classification of diseases. And we continue the fight to maintain access to health care for transgender and gender nonconforming people and defeat and repeal “no promo homo” laws and “Don’t Say Gay or Trans” bills that remove or omit our stories from books and curriculum.

But it’s hard not to feel like this is an inflection point that will shape the fight for years to come. After years of recycling tactics from the Anita Bryant days in the 1970s, anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers have zeroed in and coalesced around a social-political strategy that exploits knowledge gaps that people have about transgender Americans. Their goal is to challenge generally accepted values and norms of decency, liberty, and equality. By exploiting the knowledge gap about LGBTQ+ issues and filling it with disinformation, they are manufacturing outrage to then use as an excuse to attack us. The public discourse – reaching a fever pitch – has undoubtedly influenced the selection of these cases. And the decisions are in the hands of a Supreme Court with a conservative majority.

These cases – and many others now pending throughout the court system – test not only the limits of the law but also our collective commitment to equity and justice. This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court Justices to delegitimize efforts to eradicate LGBTQ+ people from public life and to signal that these attacks conflict with the Constitution.

Cases like these remind us of what’s at stake for our community. But they also emphasize that we are a community that refuses to be erased, silenced, or sidelined. We feel confident in the merits of these cases and how they should be decided, but no matter the outcomes, no court, public official, or politician can invalidate our identities. We will continue to fight for each other and for a future where we can all thrive, together.

What to know, what to do: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Choosing Uncommon Courage

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

The Resistance Brief: Choosing Uncommon Courage  

The current administration’s intimidation campaign is in full effect. We are witnessing attacks on academic freedom, corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, state and local governments, courts and judges, and now lawyers and law firms.

This is a comprehensive strategy to neutralize legal opposition, obliterate the separation of government powers, and block any pushback from institutions with broad influence and the power to act as arbiters of justice. It is a deeply disturbing pattern that demands loyalty along partisan lines above all else.

Unfortunately, we have seen some of the very entities that should be working to uphold and fortify the rule of law – including a handful of major law firms – bend a knee to these tyrannical abuses of power instead.

As an organization committed to using the tools of the law to uphold human rights and dignity, watching powerful law firms commit millions of dollars in pro bono work to the Trump administration to avoid sanctions has been especially disheartening and alarming. We cannot allow the legal profession’s independence to be compromised, or we risk undermining the very mechanisms that guard against autocracy.

Such anticipatory obedience may be an attempt to emerge unscathed from a period of political turmoil – but the decision to roll over and submit is anchored in fear and delusion. As we’ve seen time and again from this administration, the goalposts are in a constant state of flux. And as history clearly shows us, the more these firms acquiesce to bullying and unconstitutional tactics now, the more will be demanded of them to stay in the regime’s “good graces” in the future.

Caving to power should not be the accepted standard – especially when there are other options.

While some firms have made a “business decision” to cave to the demands of this administration for self-preservation – and ignored the historical consequences of this approach – others are resisting. WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, Williams & Connolly, Perkins Coie, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters are just some of the firms that have decided to fight back publicly and disrupt lawless power grabs. Williams & Connolly filed a lawsuit representing Perkins Coie in its challenge to the executive order targeting them, and was granted a temporary restraining order shortly after. And Keker, Van Nest & Peters penned a New York Times op-ed, Our Law Firm Won’t Cave to Trump. Who Will Join Us?

Theirs is not a rhetorical question. We’ve asked the same thing: Who will join us?

This is an all-hands-on-deck moment – where every institution and person in public service should think strategically about the role they will play in protecting our democracy.

Last month, I attended the Pro Bono Conference in Washington, D.C. and had several conversations with pro bono counsel who attended. Many of them confided in me that the Trump administration’s attacks on law firms have caused a chilling effect, and, as a result, their firms are apprehensive about publicly partnering with advocacy organizations. This is some of what we must contend with as we seek justice and work to uphold the rule of law and judicial review. Luckily, there were also organizations present who were boldly stepping up and eager to practice uncommon courage.

Fear is natural, but it cannot be what guides us. I have learned that on the other side of fear is a path forward, towards justice. We must ask ourselves the right questions to think and act courageously, even in the face of peril. If we have limited power now, the right first question might be: How do we build power?

In last week’s Resistance Brief, I wrote about some of the tangible steps we can take to prevent the proliferation of political violence: staying informed, contacting representatives, supporting local equality organizations, donating often and generously. What I didn’t mention explicitly was that all those suggested actions can foster an environment of agency, empowerment, community, and defiance – which, in turn, can help protect our democracy.

Compounding power by remaining coordinated, building coalitions, and uniting in a shared vision helps interrupt corruption and builds public confidence in our institutions, making us all feel braver. This is why Keker, Van Nest & Peters’s op-ed is a timely example of an effort to unite a profession known for its creativity, moxie, boldness, and independence.

Compounding power also creates layers of resistance, made up of groups and individuals coming together to develop a diverse and well-resourced coalition, ready to collectively challenge threats to our democracy whenever possible. This is the way we rebuild healthy political and societal norms. This is how we forge innovative partnerships that allow us to urgently and aggressively pursue justice for LGBTQ+ people. And GLAD Law is already forging those partnerships with courageous firms like Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC and Langer Grogan & Diver P.C., who have stepped up to join us on several of our 6 legal challenges to Trump’s executive orders.

History offers us many examples of times when communities have risen to meet the moment, despite the risk, because the long-term payoff was worth it. We are safeguarding the futures of generations to come – to have a shot at perfecting and living out the promise of freedom our constitution grants us.

Someday, future generations will look to us for guidance. Perhaps the next question to ask ourselves is: how will we define our legacy as ancestors today?

What to do, what else to know: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

Transgender Servicemembers in Talbott Push Back Today Against Another Attempt to Implement Trump’s Military Ban

Lead attorneys for the plaintiffs call the ban an “alarming threat to the trust needed to maximize national security” that would “permanently damage the careers of thousands of individuals who have served honorably and sacrificed for our country”

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the plaintiffs, 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits, in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump) filed an opposition to the government’s motion for an emergency stay. The motion for an emergency stay is yet another attempt by the government to move forward with implementation of the transgender military ban stemming from President Trump’s January executive order, which had previously been scheduled to occur on March 28. Both the constitutionality of this ban and the lack of any rational reason or data underpinning it have come under fire during this litigation.

Today’s motion calls out that the government has not and cannot meet the extraordinary burden needed to “greenlight a purge of transgender servicemembers,” many of whom are distinguished members of our armed forces filling critical roles and “who have deployed globally and earned numerous commendations.” It further notes that proceeding forward with the ban would result in irreparable harm against thousands of currently serving transgender servicemembers.

The government had also sought an administrative stay in Talbott in an effort to prevent the nationwide preliminary injunction from going into effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put mechanisms in place to prevent government action that would negatively impact any servicemembers in response to the ban.

On March 18, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the transgender military ban. In a forceful order in which she held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, calling it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.” That injunction halts implementation of the ban and protects transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, a process used to address instances of misconduct.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, shared their reactions to today’s opposition to the government’s motion for an emergency stay:

“The government has not and cannot provide any rational reason to justify the systematic purge of transgender troops who are meeting all performance standards. In fact, the government has actually conceded that each active-duty plaintiff is honorable, disciplined, and fit to serve,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Enacting the ban and moving forward with this abrupt policy reversal would erode essential trust within military units and permanently damage the careers of thousands of individuals who have served honorably and sacrificed for our country.”

“The government continues to wind its way through the process, invoking every legal tool possible in an attempt to implement a ban that is both unconstitutional and an alarming threat to the trust needed to maximize national security,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “The human story behind the cost of this ban is gut-wrenching, as we hear from servicemembers and their families for whom the ban would end careers and destroy lives.”

Talbott v. Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about Talbott v. USA.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Strategies against surveillance

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

A few weeks back, the Department of Homeland Security eliminated an explicit ban on the surveillance of people based solely on sexual orientation and gender identity via an update to an Office of Intelligence and Analysis policy manual. It happened quietly and was quickly buried under a mounting stack of unconscionable presidential executive actions. But the change evoked a feeling of danger and fear that may be indicative of a broader shift in strategy to intensify political violence against the LGBTQ+ community.

The World Health Organization’s definition of political violence includes the deliberate denial of basic needs (food, health care, education) and human rights (freedom of speech, freedom of association). It’s hard not to brand the attack on our community with political violence when LGBTQ+ people are being removed from government websites and from policies meant to protect us from unlawful surveillance. All while investigations into anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination have all but stopped, nondiscrimination protections in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities are under attack, LGBTQ+ asylum-seekers are being deported without due process, and threats to HIV funding are looming.

The removal of sexual orientation and gender identity from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis policy manual was a rollback of the Biden administration’s efforts to implement the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision, which sought to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. While this inclusive manual’s language was only four years old, it provided a layer of protection that could prevent some of the unlawful surveillance LGBTQ+ people – disproportionately queer and trans people of color – have experienced throughout history.

This surveillance of queer people has taken many forms: the Lavender Scare in the ‘50s when federal employees were identified and removed from government service because of peddled disinformation that they posed a national security threat; the FBI investigation of one of the first queer rights organizations, the Mattachine Society, because of alleged communist ties; the police raids of gay bars that eventually led to the Stonewall riots; FBI surveillance of ACT UP and the Center for Constitutional Rights in the ‘90s; surveilling and purging gay servicemembers and then the intermediate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. More recent examples include federal law enforcement surveillance of Black Lives Matter protestors, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton trying to obtain data on the number of Texans who had updated their gender marker on their driver’s licenses, and the US Department of Agriculture asking for the names of LGBTQ+ employee resource group leaders.

During my time in Texas, I became keyed into these types of attacks. It conditioned me to try to recognize patterns in government actions, policy-making, bill filings, and language used by anti-equality lawmakers. What I noticed was that their actions were attempts to create building blocks meant to stretch the permissible parameters of cruelty. Apathy paved the way for going further while community action and resistance moderated and delayed the execution of their anti-LGBTQ+ playbook. Resistance can topple their plans built upon a flimsy scaffolding of bias and fear. Together, we have the power to undermine these plans.

GLAD Law will continue to do our part with our surge-litigation strategy that aggressively pursues justice through swift, strategic action to use all aspects of the law to stop, delay, and reduce the harm of the Trump administration’s unconstitutional actions. Of the six challenges we have filed to date, five have succeeded with temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions blocking harmful policies, while one is pending.

To guard against further attacks on LGBTQ+ people, we must all be ready. We know there are proven tactics that can help prevent the proliferation of political violence. So this week, let’s focus on the actions that combat political violence: public condemnation of attacks on our community, building bridges where we can, empowering local communities, early warning and preparing not panicking.

What to do:

  • Review Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Surveillance Self-Defense Guide.
  • Identify 1-2 trusted news sources: It is so easy to go down a rabbit hole of bad news. Pick your trusted sources and monitor your information intake.
  • Add your lawmakers’ office number to your phone: Make sure you use it to remind them to speak out and publicly condemn anti-LGBTQ+ attacks and voice your concerns about unlawful surveillance.
  • Attend town halls and school board meetings: Building resilient communities starts with local participation, public comment, and accountability.
  • Adopt a statewide equality group or local LGBTQ+ center: Early warning mitigates the impact of political violence efforts. Sign up for updates to receive action alerts.
  • Be ready to mobilize: There will be moments that call for large protests and direct action. You can help most by participating directly. But if that is not an option, you can also support that work by volunteering as a legal observer, helping with planning, or delivering essentials like food, water, and first aid supplies.

You can also help GLAD Law continue to act swiftly and decisively to secure even more legal victories:

  • Commit Pro-Bono Hours: If you or your firm want to make a commitment to help address the coordinated assault we are under, please email us to pledge pro-bono commitments.
  • Join GLAD Law’s Lawyer Referral Service: Assist LGBTQ+ community members in need of answers to legal questions.
  • Donate Generously: Become a monthly donor to ensure steady, dependable support. Interested in anchoring an upcoming fundraising campaign to secure funding for our rapid response visionary leadership? Reach out to us!

What else to know: 

Donate Today
Get Updates

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

Second Federal Court Blocks Trump’s Transgender Military Ban   

Lead attorneys in earlier case Talbott v. Trump respond to the now second nationwide preliminary injunction—this time in the case of Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump today, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Hale Settle issued what will now be a second nationwide preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from Trump’s January executive order. Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott v. Trump issued a first nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban. In a forceful order in which Judge Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.” Earlier tonight in Talbott, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Department of Defense can take no action negatively impacting any servicemember while the court is considering the department’s motion for emergency stay.

Department of Defense implementation of the ban to identify and separate transgender servicemembers was scheduled to begin on March 28, a rapid timeframe former military leaders have characterized as “rushed” and “alarming,” noting that the complexity of the military personnel system requires “months of careful planning and timelines.”

Today’s order in Shilling, along with the injunction previously issued in Talbott by Judge Reyes, prevents the Department of Defense from initiating separation proceedings against any transgender service members or otherwise enforcing the ban. 

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, respond to today’s issuance of a second preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban:

“Given the thousands of brave and decorated transgender servicemembers facing unthinkable harms as the result of this ban, we are heartened but not surprised by today’s decision,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “President Trump’s executive order and Secretary Hegseth’s implementation represent a policy that cannot be constitutionally justified. Thousands of transgender servicemembers currently serving have clearly demonstrated they meet all military standards, with many deployed to critical missions worldwide, proving their capabilities beyond question. These dedicated servicemembers and their families have earned our nation’s gratitude and respect, and the government has a responsibility to honor the commitments it has made to them. This is about keeping faith with Americans who have risked everything to defend our freedoms.

“In both Talbott and Shilling, it was abundantly clear to the court that it must act swiftly to protect our troops from an unconstitutional and indefensible ban that would disrupt the lives and dismantle the careers of thousands of transgender servicemembers and their families. The harms associated with this ban are gut-wrenching,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “In each of these cases, the government did not even attempt to claim that any evidence supported its position. There is no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably.” 

A nationwide preliminary injunction halts implementation of the ban and protects transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, a process used to address instances of misconduct.

Talbott v. Trump, the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order, is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC. GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

News

Federal Court Rejects Another Trump Administration Attempt to Implement the Transgender Military Ban and Reinstates Nationwide Preliminary Injunction

Lead attorneys for the plaintiffs say military families face a “crushing amount of pressure” and that the motion to dissolve was “nothing more than a disingenuous, last-ditch tactic to sow confusion and cause delay”

U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes today rejected a Trump administration motion to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction issued in Talbott v. Trump. Judge Reyes issued the injunction on March 18 in a forceful order in which she held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, calling it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.” Defendants filed the motion to dissolve on March 21.

In her opinion today, Judge Reyes denied Defendants’ motion, holding that “Defendants cannot evade discriminating against transgender people simply by labeling the policy as addressing gender dysphoria.” Judge Reyes also denied Defendants’ request that she stay her preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.  

As a result of today’s decision, Judge Reyes’ order blocking the government from enforcing the ban will take effect at 7 p.m. on Friday, March 28. That injunction halts implementation of the ban and protects transgender servicemembers and recruits from its significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court. These harms include servicemembers being removed from deployments, denied commissions and promotions, placed on administrative leave, denied medically needed care, and ultimately being placed in involuntary separation proceedings, a process used to address instances of misconduct.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, respond to Judge Reyes’ ruling:

“These efforts to stall the preliminary injunction from going into effect to protect our transgender troops burden military families with a crushing amount of pressure as they navigate a limbo with outcomes that will cause devastating harms to the military careers of these incredible soldiers,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “It is unthinkable that we would treat this way the brave individuals who sacrifice so much for our country.”

“This motion was nothing more than a last-ditch tactic to sow confusion and cause delay. There is no way to defend a policy that seeks to recklessly discard thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated transgender servicemembers, many of whom have deployed to critical locations across the globe. The government has conceded it has no evidence to support its position and no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.

Talbott v. Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. The case is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in this case, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about Talbott v. Trump.

News

GLAD Law Announces New Legal Director

Joshua Rovenger, former Associate Counsel to the President, Racial Justice & Equity, will join GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders’ experienced and growing civil rights legal team at the forefront of challenging anti-LGBTQ+ policies and advancing equal justice under law.

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) is pleased to announce Josh Rovenger as incoming Legal Director. The announcement follows a national search facilitated by Major, Lindsey, & Africa. Rovenger will join GLAD Law on April 7.

Joshua Rovenger, smiling in a blazer, light blue button-down shirt, and blue polkadot tie.
Joshua Rovenger

Rovenger most recently served under President Biden as Associate Counsel to the President, Racial Justice & Equity, where his wide-ranging portfolio included LGBTQI+ equity, democracy and civic engagement, religious freedom, access to justice, veterans’ affairs, and housing.

“Josh Rovenger is an experienced, strategic and passionate leader and litigator,” said Ricardo Martinez, GLAD Law Executive Director. “His deep understanding that impact litigation, public policy, and public education must work together to defend and expand civil rights and his dedicated commitment to racial and economic justice will be critical assets to GLAD Law and our movement at this pivotal moment for LGBTQ+ rights. I am thrilled to welcome Josh’s leadership as our accomplished and dedicated legal team fights around the clock to stop, delay and reduce the harm of anti-LGBTQ+ attacks coming from the current federal administration while continuing to advance GLAD Law’s vision of equality and justice for all.”

Prior to joining the White House, Rovenger was Supervising Attorney at the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, where he led economic justice cases in state and federal courts and developed and led advocacy projects focused on systems change. As Senior Staff Attorney at the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Harvard Legal Services Center Law Clinic, he served as lead counsel in litigation against the U.S. Department of Education and various corporations on behalf of hundreds of thousands of defrauded borrowers, leading to the discharge of more than $6 billion in federal student debt.

Rovenger has held Senior Associate and Associate positions at Baker Hostetler, Covington & Burling, and Ropes & Gray. He has clerked for Judge Jeffrey R. Howard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and for Judge Michael A. Ponsor at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

“We find ourselves in a moment where future generations will ask what each of us did to fight back. This time demands resilience and creativity — traits our queer community has built up over generations and that GLAD Law exemplifies,” said Rovenger. “For decades, GLAD Law has been at the forefront of our battle for liberation and justice, achieving lasting progress that has benefited all of us, my husband and myself included. Now, when it would be easy to let anxiety and fear take hold, GLAD Law is refusing to back down, challenging government overreach and working hard to push the arc of history towards LGBTQI+, racial, and economic justice. I am humbled and exhilarated to join this brilliant team to fight for the multi-racial, gender-inclusive democracy we seek, and to do all I can to ensure that when future generations look back, all of us, together, will have met the moment.”

Since 1978, GLAD Law’s work has broken through resistance and prejudice to achieve scores of precedent-setting legal victories for transgender rights, family protections, marriage equality, LGBTQ+ youth rights, protections for people living with HIV and much more. GLAD Law is currently leading the fight against federal policies targeting LGBTQ+ people with multiple lawsuits challenging harmful Trump Administration executive orders.

News

Federal Court Grants Order Barring Separation Proceedings for Two Transgender Servicemembers

Despite serving with distinction in the U.S. Air Force for years Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sergeant Logan Ireland have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the transgender military ban

The New Jersey federal district court today granted a Temporary Restraining Order to keep Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sergeant Logan Ireland from being further impacted by the Trump administration’s transgender military ban while a case challenging it in D.C. federal district court moves forward. 

Staff Sergeant Bade and Master Sergeant Ireland have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban. Amid increasingly unpredictable directives from the Department of Defense and the Air Force, both Plaintiffs sought urgent and immediate relief from the New Jersey federal district court to prevent imminent involuntary separation proceedings. 

Staff Sergeant Bade and Master Sergeant Ireland are represented in their case, Ireland v. Hegseth, by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law); the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); Stapleton Segal Cochran; and Langer Grogan & Diver. GLAD Law and NCLR are also leading the challenge to the transgender military ban in the D.C. federal district court case Talbott v. Trump. That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is “soaked in animus;” and that, due to the Government’s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is “highly unlikely” to survive any level of judicial review. 

Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, said: “Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sergeant Logan Ireland are extraordinary Airmen who imminently faced being ripped out of military careers to which they have dedicated their lives due to the transgender military ban. We are relieved that the court intervened today to ensure Staff Sergeant Bade and Master Sergeant Ireland do not face further devastating damage to their reputations and military careers or the very real prospect of involuntary separation from the military they’ve faithfully served while the challenge to the ban moves forward in the D.C. federal district court. Staff Sergeant Bade and Master Sergeant Ireland had both already fallen victim to this administration’s aggressive implementation of the ban, being yanked from key deployments and forced onto administrative absence against their will. These Airmen have risked everything to protect American freedoms—they deserve better than becoming the targets of a calculated, political purge.” 

John Stapleton of Stapleton Segal Cochran and John Grogan of Langer Grogan & Diver said: “Like the thousands of other transgender service members in the military, Master Sergeant Ireland and Staff Sergeant Bade have achieved everything in their military careers on merit and merit alone. They are highly decorated, and they have dedicated their lives to protecting all of us. America deserves to hear their stories. When we move beyond the games of political football and look at the cold hard facts, the transgender military ban is an unconstitutional abuse of power that denigrates military heroes and makes America less safe.” 

About the Plaintiffs

Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade
Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade has served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force for Six Years. He has risen in the ranks from Airman First Class (A1C) to Senior Airman (E4) and, following testing, was chosen for the highly selective E5 promotion. Following the ban, Staff Sergeant Bade was forced to return early from deployment to Kuwait, where he was a member of the base’s Security Forces, and placed on administrative absence.

Staff Sergeant Bade issued the following statement:
“I was inspired by my grandfather’s World War Two service and felt called to defend American freedom and democracy. For six years, I’ve strived to embody what Americans expect from their military: expertise, character, and leadership. Now, I’ve been prevented from serving the troops I mentor and the nation I’ve committed my life to protect—all while living by the Airman’s Creed that I will never falter, and I will not fail.” 

Master Sergeant Logan Ireland
Master Sergeant Logan Ireland has served with distinction in the United States Air Force for over fourteen years. He is currently stationed in Hawaii as Flight Chief in the Office of Special Investigations. Following the ban, Master Sergeant Ireland was told to leave a Temporary Duty assignment where he was attending a multiweek training and forced to go on administrative absence. 

Master Sergeant Ireland issued the following statement:
“As a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer leading a zero-fail mission set in the Indo-Pacific theater, I leverage the training and experience gained throughout my military career to serve with focused lethality and honor—qualities that have nothing to do with the fact that I am transgender. I’ve served multiple tours in Afghanistan, Qatar, South Korea, and the UAE, consistently exceeding standards and earning accolades based solely on merit. Thousands of transgender service members like me fill critical roles requiring years of specialized training. Removing us creates dangerous operational gaps across every theater. My team in the Indo-Pacific wants their leader back—the one who wears the same uniform and swore the same oath as they did.”

Learn more about Ireland v. Hegseth.

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice

Faith, justice, and persistence

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

The Resistance Brief: Faith, Justice, and Persistence  

We are living through a time of escalating discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and violence. Our inability to provide immediate relief to so much suffering keeps us up at night. I know it weighs heavy on my spirit.  

For me, those feelings are wrapped up in my Catholic upbringing. My relationship status with my faith remains “it’s complicated,” but there is an inextricable connection that binds my advocacy to the lessons I learned attending church as a child alongside my mother and grandmother. They taught me my highest purpose is to do the greatest good for people without compromising myself or my values.

Recently, I’ve prayed for collective decency, kindness, and mercy. And for the safety and well-being of all people. While systems of oppression are not new, and the fight for LGBTQ+ equality is ongoing, the current callous attacks on our community and disregard for our humanity (sometimes in the name of faith) feel unholy.  

One of my favorite passages has always been, “Whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did it for me.” I always loved that lesson, which uplifts the innate dignity we all possess. It is a lesson that calls us to reflect on how we treat those with the least power: marginalized communities, people experiencing homelessness, and people who are sick or imprisoned. How we treat “the least of these” defines who we are and is a measure of the strength of our democracy. 

The current landscape and its many horrors are aimed at creating insufferable conditions and coercing us to abandon those within our community who need us the most.  

But I’m reminded of another lesson I learned in the church pew as a child: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” The test we face is our ability to show up for each other. 

Whether it’s immigrants being detained, deported, and disappeared with no due process, unaccompanied LGBTQ+ minors surrendering themselves at the border, trans women being brutalized by police, cutting off funding for humanitarian aid and HIV prevention, or transgender inmates experiencing unspeakable abuse in prisons – the realities of the toll this moment is having may consume and overwhelm us.  

But it’s important to understand that we feel this way by design. The current federal administration is conducting a stress test on just how much indignation towards marginalized communities we will tolerate. But one thing I know about the queer community is that we are relentless in our pursuit of justice and equality. Regardless of how tired we are, of how scared we may be, we show up for those in need. 

I’m really proud of the path GLAD Law has taken to provide relief and support to those who need us the most at this time. 

Shortly after the inauguration, GLAD Law took immediate action challenging Trump’s Day One anti-transgender executive order. As a result of that order, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began placing transgender women in solitary confinement, at imminent risk of being moved to men’s facilities and losing their necessary medical care. 

Transgender women face incredibly high rates of harassment and assault, including sexual assault, when housed with men, and withdrawal of medical care causes devastating health impacts. GLAD Law acted quickly, filing three cases, Moe v. Trump, Doe v. Bondi, and Jones v. Bondi, securing rulings for our clients to remain in women’s facilities and ensuring their continued medical care. We’ve continued to add plaintiffs to our cases as we hear from more transgender women at risk, and this week, the federal judge granted an order directing BOP to return two women from men’s facilities where they’d been transferred. 

Many stories underscoring the direct harm of this administration’s actions have come to our attention through GLAD Law Answers, our free, confidential legal infoline that provides people  with information, referrals, and, if possible, pro bono legal assistance. Over the last three months, our GLAD Law Answers line has received 827 new intakes, compared to 322 intakes by this time last year. The requests for support include questions from incarcerated individuals, people experiencing challenges accessing medical care, servicemembers impacted by the trans military ban, and people experiencing employment discrimination, bullying at school, harassment, and violence. 

I know it feels like fights that were settled and secure are being fought again. It’s not fair that our community is in the crosshairs once more and being scapegoated for political gains. And while we can and should be frustrated that we’re fighting the same, tired playbook, that also means GLAD Law has the blueprint to fight back. Our cases against BOP show how the law and the courts can play their rightful role in stopping unthinkable harm. The Reagan-appointed federal judge saw how Trump’s BOP policy violates the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act and the 8th Amendment, acted quickly, and to date, BOP has complied with those orders. 

That blueprint to get us out of this moment includes showing up for community – all of it. And when I need some reassurance, I call in my mom’s prayer circle, who have been praying every Tuesday and Thursday for a just and merciful outcome. 

What to do, what else to know: 

Donate Today

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

en_USEnglish
es_MXEspañol de México en_USEnglish
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.