Talbott v. USA

Update: On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Shilling v. Trump allowing Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect while multiple legal challenges move forward. Later that night, plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals responding to the SCOTUS ruling and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops. Learn more.

We are challenging the Trump administration’s executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.

The scope and severity of the ban are unprecedented. This is a complete purge of all transgender people from military service.

We are fighting back for the thousands of transgender service members and enlistees who meet and exceed the same rigorous military standards as others, and who put their lives on the line to serve their country.

About the Case:

On January 28, 2025, GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging President Trump’s January 27 executive order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.

Talbott v. Trump was filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals actively seeking enlistment.
Since the initial filing, 12 more plaintiffs have joined the case.

Learn about some of the service members challenging this ban.

On February 3, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block enforcement of the executive order while litigation against the ban proceeds. The preliminary injunction hearing took place in DC on February 18-19 and continued on March 13.

In keeping with President Trump’s executive order, the Pentagon released a policy on February 26 that is a complete ban on transgender military service, forcing out current service members and banning transgender people from enlisting.

On March 18, the court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction – halting the ban’s enforcement. In the ruling, Judge Reyes noted 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.” On March 26, Judge Reyes rejected a Trump administration motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. As a result, implementation of the ban was halted and transgender servicemembers and recruits were protected from the bans significant harms while the future of the ban is being decided in court.

On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Shilling v. Trump allowing Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect while multiple legal challenges move forward. Later that night, plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals responding to the SCOTUS ruling and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops. Learn more.

GLAD Law and NCLR led the legal challenge to Trump’s first transgender military ban, issued in 2017. Multiple federal courts found that ban to be unconstitutional, blocking it from taking effect for nearly two years. President Biden reversed the ban in 2021.

In addition to GLAD Law and NCLR, the plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Wardenski, Principal Attorney, Wardenski P.C., Sara Kropf of Kropf Moseley PLLC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein. 

This case was previously called Talbott v. Trump.

About the Plaintiffs:

The plaintiffs serve across all branches of the military and are contributing among the highest levels, including a Major, a Captain, a Sergeant, and a Navy Pilot. They bring decades of experience, training, and education, including a West Point education and several master’s degrees.  They have decorated careers, with commendations ranging from Sailor of the Year and Meritorious Service Medals to Joint Service Commendations and a Bronze Star. Some have been a part of decorated military families spanning generations and have served honorably throughout the country and the world on many deployments.

“When you put on the uniform, differences fall away and what matters is your ability to do the job,” said Nicolas Talbott, Second Lieutenant, Army. “Every individual must meet the same objective and rigorous qualifications in order to serve. It has been my dream and my goal to serve my country for as long as I can remember. My being transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me and every servicemember.”

“I’ve been military my entire life. I was born on a military base,” said Ensign Dan Danridge, student flight officer, U.S. Navy. “Every day I lace up my boots the same as everybody else. I pass the same tests as everybody else. Being transgender is irrelevant to my service. What matters is that I can complete the tasks that are critical to our mission.”

“My family has a long tradition of military service and it’s the only career I’ve pursued,” said Gordon Herrero, Captain, U.S. Army. “Separating qualified Soldiers like me will create critical vacancies across the force and could jeopardize the unit cohesion and trust that are vital to our mission. There’s nothing about being transgender that makes me better or worse than any other Soldier I serve alongside. We are all here because we are committed to our country, and we are passionate, willing, and able to serve effectively.”

“I’ve spent more than half my life in the Army, including combat in Afghanistan,” said Kate Cole, Sergeant First Class, Army. “Removing qualified transgender soldiers like me means an exodus of experienced personnel who fill key positions and can’t be easily replaced, putting the burden on our fellow soldiers left behind. That’s just wrong — and it destabilizes our armed forces.”