Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

**GLAD Law Responds to Madera trenzada Sentencia de la Corte Suprema**

“Today’s decision means access to PrEP is safe — for now,” said GLAD Law’s Bennett Klein

The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling in Kennedy contra Braidwood Management, Inc.. upholding the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to make recommendation for no-cost insurance coverage for preventive healthcare services — including PrEP, a powerful HIV prevention tool.

GLAD Law presentó una amigo del escrito de la corte en Madera trenzada urging the Court to uphold no-cost access to PrEP and other critical preventive health care services. The brief highlights the devastating public health consequences of undermining access to PrEP, a medication that reduces risk of HIV transmission to virtually zero when taken as prescribed. The brief was submitted on behalf of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors and a coalition of health care advocates.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law bennet klein responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed a critical component of the Affordable Care Act: access to life-saving preventive health care. The Court upheld the authority of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force to make recommendations regarding no-cost coverage for preventive healthcare services like cancer and diabetes screenings and HIV prevention such as PrEP, which is nearly 100 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission when taken as directed.

“The ability to rely on medical experts to recommend key preventive health measures is critical to individual and public health in the U.S. Today’s decision means access to PrEP is safe — for now. Ensuring individuals can access PrEP without financial barriers is essential to ending the HIV epidemic, addressing racial disparities in healthcare, and ensuring people have the care they need to live healthy lives and thrive.

“Just last week the FDA approved the game-changing long-acting injectable PrEP medication Lenacapavir. We hope to see the Task Force, and ultimately Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr, approve no-cost insurance coverage of this truly revolutionary method of HIV prevention.

In this political environment, we are deeply concerned, however, that the Court’s Madera trenzada ruling brings into relief the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ extraordinary power to review and block Task Force recommendations and fire and appoint members at will, which could potentially affect the integrity of future recommendations. In light of Secretary Kennedy’s recent mass firing of an expert vaccine panel and replacement with several vaccine skeptics, we must be vigilant about the politicization of the Task Force going forward. We encourage states to take appropriate action to protect and expand access to PrEP, including the newest six-month injectable, the most effective HIV prevention tool yet to be developed.”

Conozca más sobre el caso.

Learn more about GLAD Law’s work to expand and protect access to PrEP.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

GLAD Law Responds to Mahmoud Sentencia de la Corte Suprema

“Today, the Court missed an opportunity to ensure all young people are prepared to interact with diverse people and thrive in an ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary Bonauto

WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today found plaintiff families entitled to a preliminary injunction in Mahmoud contra Taylor, a case that will determine whether parents have a First Amendment right to notice and opportunity to opt out of curriculum involving the five books at issue featuring LGBTQ+ people.

GLAD Law presentó una amigo del escrito de la corte en Mahmoud—together with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Igualdad familiar, COLAGENO, , Free State Justice, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, y the Trevor Project—arguing that part of the role of public schools is preparing students to participate in a pluralistic democracy.

Director sénior de derechos civiles y estrategias legales de GLAD Law María L. Bonauto, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world. Freedom of religion is a value we all share, but today the Court missed an opportunity to ensure all young people are prepared to participate in a pluralistic society. The ‘windows’ and ‘mirrors’ approach to reading curriculum employed by Montgomery County Public Schools and districts across the country allows students to learn about reading and writing while better seeing and understanding themselves and the world around them. LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people. The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”

Conozca más sobre el caso.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

**GLAD Law and NCLR Respond to the Escarcha Sentencia de la Corte Suprema**

“The Court today failed to do its job. It chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

WASHINGTON, DC—The Supreme Court of the United States today issued its ruling en Estados Unidos contra Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth.

Today’s decision has no impact in states where health care for transgender youth is not currently banned.

Every major medical association including the Asociación Médica de Estados Unidos y el Asociacion Americana de Psicologia support this care, backed by decades of research and relying upon the same safe and effective medications used to treat a range of other health issues for children and adults. Last month, in the most comprehensive review to date, a new 1,000+ report commissioned by the Utah Legislature found that this care is supported by substantial evidence, is safe and effective, and reduces risk of suicidality.

Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi y National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter, both of whom have more than 30 years each of LGBTQ+ impact litigation experience, including on transgender health care cases, and are themselves transgender, responded to today’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The Court today failed to do its job,” said Jennifer Levi, directora sénior de derechos transgénero y queer de GLAD Law.When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution’s backbone. Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics.”

“The Court’s ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians. This decision will cause real harm.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a dangerous message that even laws causing immediate harm to transgender youth can stay in effect while legal challenges work their way through the courts, often a process that takes months or years. This allows states to enforce discriminatory policies that disrupt lives, restrict medical care, and create fear and instability, even before their constitutionality has been fully decided. As of June 2025, similar laws have passed or been proposed in over 20 states, creating a patchwork of legality that leaves many families uncertain whether their child will be able to receive proper care.

This ruling paves the way for a broader wave of anti-transgender legislation under the Trump administration, bolstered by President Trump’s return to office and multiple executive orders targeting transgender people, including efforts to eliminate federal recognition of gender identity, restrict access to healthcare for transgender people of all ages, and the banning of transgender students from sports and public school inclusion.

Anti-transgender legislation like Tennessee’s law is part of a growing national campaign to strip transgender people of their rights, dignity, and access to lifesaving care. These laws are not based on medical evidence or concern for children, but on fear, misinformation, and a desire to erase trans people from public life. The harm they cause is real, immediate, and profound. At GLAD Law, we are committed to challenging these attacks in the courts, supporting affected families, and working toward a future where all transgender people can live openly, safely, and with full equality.

Make a donation today to support our legal advocacy and ensure every young person can grow up with the freedom to be themselves.

You Can Help Power This Fight

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

GLAD Law Condemns Committees of Conference Approval of Legislation Banning Access to Health Care for Transgender Adolescents

Today, Committees of Conference reported a bill to ban access to health care for transgender youth. HB 377 prohibits medical professionals in New Hampshire from providing medically-necessary puberty-blocking medications and hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients under age 18 and denies parents of transgender youth the ability to seek expert medical care for their child.

Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) shared the following response:

“The legislature can still reverse its extreme overreach into the private lives of New Hampshire families by rejecting this bill. Parents and families, not the government, know what’s best for their children. All New Hampshire families must retain the ability to make healthcare decisions for themselves without government interference. This legislation takes that right away from parents, who want nothing more than to care for their child.

“The best way to protect the health and well-being of transgender young people is to ensure that they can continue to access essential, age-appropriate medical care from licensed clinicians practicing according to the well-established medical standards of care. Banning necessary medical care puts young people at increased risk of serious harms, including depression, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts or behavior. When transgender youth, like all youth, receive the medical care and support they need, they are able to thrive and have healthy, happy childhoods that set them up for success in life.

“Furthermore, this ban punishes medical providers who follow expert medical standards of care for transgender patients—standards that are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and every other leading U.S. medical professional association.

“It can be hard to understand what it’s like to have a transgender child. The parents of transgender adolescents need information and advice from professionals they trust, but this bill would cut off access to that guidance, leaving families without hope for supporting their children as they suffer.

“This effort to prevent young people from receiving necessary health care is just the latest in a years-long campaign by extremist politicians to roll back rights and protections for transgender Granite Staters, especially transgender youth, and to insert government between them and their families. GLAD Law will continue to work with our allies and use every legal tool at our disposal to ensure that all New Hampshire residents—including transgender Granite Staters—can live authentically and without needless government intrusion.”

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

Maine Legislature Rejects Bills Targeting Transgender Student Athletes

AUGUSTA – The Maine Legislature rejected eight bills on Monday that targeted transgender student athletes, the transgender community and the Maine Human Rights Act. A broad coalition came together to organize in response, including equality organizations, health care providers, legal advocacy groups and everyday Mainers of all ages and backgrounds.

“Thousands of Maine people showed up at the State House, called and emailed their legislators and stood strong against eight different bills that targeted our community,” said Gia Drew, Executive Director of EqualityMaine. “We are grateful for the members of the Maine Legislature who listened and helped to defeat these harmful bills. Our community is resilient, and we want every transgender person in Maine to know that they are loved, that they are not alone, and that we will stand with them.”

The Legislature considered and rejected eight bills:

LD 233, An Act to Prohibit Biological Males from Participating in School Athletic Programs and Activities Designed for Females When State Funding is Provided to the School;
LD 868, An Act to Ensure Equity and Safety in Athletics, Restrooms, Changing Rooms and Housing at Elementary, Secondary and Postsecondary Schools;
LD 1002, An Act to Protect Children’s Identification by Requiring Public Schools to Use the Name and Gender Specified on a Child’s Birth Certificate;
LD 1134, An Act to Prohibit Males from Participating in Female Sports or Using Female Facilities;
LD 1704, An Act to Prohibit a School Administrative Unit from Adopting a Policy that Allows a Student to Use a Restroom Designated for Use by the Opposite Sex.
LD 1337, An act to Amend Maine Human Rights Act Regarding Female Athletes and Safety in Women’s Single-sex Shelters;
LD 1432, An Act to Remove Consideration of Gender Identity from the Maine Human Rights Act; and
LD 380, An Act to Amend Certain Laws Regarding Gender-affirming Health Care Services

“Maine voters made clear 20 years ago that it’s wrong to discriminate against someone because they are transgender, and the Maine Law Court weighed in in 2014 to affirm that schools must treat transgender students equally, including access to school bathrooms or locker rooms,” said Mary Bonauto, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).

“Let’s be clear – these bills were a direct attack on our rights, our dignity and our lives,” said Bre Danvers Kidman, co-director of MaineTransNet. “Our community rose up, stood shoulder to shoulder with allies across the state and shut them down. Transgender people do not exist to be used as a political wedge issue. Our civil rights are not up for debate. We are not going away. We know who we are, we know what we deserve and we will never stop fighting to live safe, free, and visible in every part of this state.”

More than 900 Maine people testified against efforts to deny trangender students access to health care and ban them from participating in school sports during a public hearing in May. The hearing drew an extraordinary cross-section of our state — parents, educators, fellow students, current and former athletes, faith leaders, and more — all united in defense of dignity, fairness, and inclusion. Their testimony reflected a clear consensus: these attacks do not reflect Maine values and have no place in our laws.

“Transgender student athletes are being targeted by some of the richest and most powerful men in the world. We are thankful for the tremendous work of our allies in the Legislature who stood up for what is right, and for the members of the trans community who told their stories and demonstrated the harm these terrible bills would have caused,” said Destie Hohman Sprague, Executive Director of the Maine Women’s Lobby.

“Every student should be treated with kindness and respect, and they should be able to attend school and play sports without fear. These bills wouldn’t have just hurt transgender girls, they would have hurt everyone and subjected all Maine girls to invasive procedures that violate personal privacy,” said Sue Campbell, Executive Director of OUT Maine.

The coalition remains united and prepared to respond to future threats to equality and human rights in Maine. As efforts to roll back protections or target vulnerable communities continue to surface across the country, advocates, organizations, and community members across the state stand ready to defend Maine’s values of compassion, courage and humanity.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

Transgender Servicemembers Told They Must Decide by Today How They Will Be Purged from the Military: ‘Voluntarily’ or Involuntarily

“There is nothing voluntary about forced separation,” says GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has instructed transgender servicemembers to self-identify for separation by today, June 6—July 7 for reservists—or face “involuntary separation.” Ley GLAD y NCLR report that transgender servicemembers are struggling with an impossible choice. Many say that “voluntary” separation is misleading. Yet they fear the unknown consequences of the involuntary separation process for themselves and their families. Former military leaders have also spoken out, calling the rushed nature of this ban “alarming” and noting that “military policy changes typically involve months of careful planning and timelines that account for the complexity of the military personnel system.”

Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi y Director Jurídico del NCLR Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott contra Estados Unidos (antes Talbott contra Trump), are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark LGBTQ+ cases. Together, Levi and Minter also led the 2017 legal fight against the transgender military ban in Doe contra Trump y Stockman contra Trump, which secured a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban. Levi and Minter responded to today’s deadline:

“There’s nothing voluntary about forced separation,” said Jennifer Levi, directora sénior de derechos transgénero y queer de GLAD Law. “Honorable and committed transgender servicemembers are being coerced into choreographing their own dismissal under a presidential edict that maligns their character with falsehoods, characterizations the government itself admitted in court are untrue. These are decorated veterans who served for decades and forcing them out simply for being transgender is a shameful betrayal of American values.”

“The military has invested millions of dollars in training thousands of transgender servicemembers, such as Talbott plaintiff Major Erica Vandal, who was born into a military family on a base overseas, graduated from West Point, served with distinction for 14 years, deployed to Afghanistan, and has been awarded a Bronze Star,” said Directora Jurídica del NCLR, Shannon Minter. “Major Vandal and others are now being forced out through a humiliating process typically reserved for misconduct that will leave a stain on their records. This mistreatment of servicemembers who have put their lives on the line for our country is needlessly cruel and a shocking betrayal of our commitment to all those who serve.”

Talbott contra Estados Unidos, and a second legal challenge to the ban, Shilling v. USA, are continuing through the courts. Talbott contra Estados Unidos is awaiting the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision on the government’s motion for emergency stay. The recent Supreme Court order in Shilling does not apply to Talbott.

Talbott contra Estados Unidos (antes Talbott contra Trump), the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s transgender military ban executive order, is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups Ley GLAD y NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

There is No Legal Basis for Threats to Providers of Transgender Youth Care

Statement from Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, in response to the FBI’s tweet about investigating health care providers of transgender youth:

There are no federal laws that support threats to providers of health care for transgender adolescents. This is part of an ongoing effort to intimidate doctors who are providing essential medical care. As a comprehensive, systematic review recently commissioned by the Utah legislature concluyó, a strong body of medical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of this care. These efforts make it more difficult for parents to secure the health care their children need to thrive.

Read the FBI’s tweet about investigating providers.

Aprende sobre el Utah legislature’s report.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

Vermont’s New Confirmatory Adoption Law Boosts Security for LGBTQ+ Families

Vermont continues to lead on ensuring LGBTQ+ people and families are protected and treated equally with passage of a new law making it easier for parents who have had a child through assisted reproduction to confirm their parentage through adoption.

Yesterday, Republican Gov. Phil Scott signed into law An act relating to confirmatory adoptions. (H.98) Championed by state Reps. Martin LaLonde and Barbara Rachelson, the legislation makes the adoption process more efficient for parents seeking an adoption decree to confirm an existing parent-child relationship by removing cumbersome and costly barriers that non-genetic parents face when adopting their own children. Confirmation of an existing parent-child relationship through judgments like adoption decrees is vitally important to protect families formed through assisted reproduction, including LGBTQ+ families. The new law takes effect July 1.

“I’m proud to see this bill signed into law. This is what we should be prioritizing as legislators: ensuring that all Vermont families — no matter how they’re formed — are legally protected and more secure,” said Rep. Barbara Rachelson, the primary sponsor of H.98. “H.98 streamlines the adoption process for parents who planned for and built their families through assisted reproduction. Now, if an individual who is already considered a parent under Vermont law seeks an adoption decree to confirm their parent-child relationship, they won’t have to undergo an invasive home study, notify gamete donors, or complete a mandatory residency period before receiving an adoption decree.”

“Parents who use assisted reproduction, in Vermont and elsewhere, continue to face the reality that other states may discriminate against them and refuse to recognize their legal status as parents because of a lack of genetic connection — especially if the parents are LGBTQ,” said Rep. Martin LaLonde, who co-sponsored H.98. “Although Vermont recognizes parents who use assisted reproduction with donor gametes as legal parents, other states may not. With an adoption decree, if the family travels or moves to another state, that state must recognize the parents’ legal relationships to their children. Streamlining the adoption process enables families to more easily obtain this important layer of protection.”

Under the new law, parents of children born through assisted reproduction who are parents or presumed parents under the Ley de paternidad de Vermont can petition for an adoption decree by submitting a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate, a signed petition for adoption, a copy of their marriage certificate if applicable, and a signed declaration explaining that the child was born through assisted reproduction, attesting to their consent to assisted reproduction, and stating that there are no other persons with a claim to parentage of the child.

The law was passed as LGBTQ+ families grow more concerned about attacks on LGBTQ+ people at the federal level and in states that are less LGBTQ+-friendly than Vermont.

“This is an important step toward ensuring that LGBTQ+ families in Vermont are able to protect themselves wherever they may travel. With extremists escalating their attacks on LGBTQ+ people across the country, parents are justifiably seeking paths to secure their legal parent-child relationship, including through adoption decrees, which are easily recognizable and must receive respect in all jurisdictions,” said Polly Crozier, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Director of Family Advocacy. “Vermont joins nine other states with confirmatory adoption laws, and we expect others will follow their lead. We’re thankful to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for championing this bill and to Governor Scott for signing it into law.”

“This common-sense legislation is vital for LGBTQ+ families, and all families using assisted reproduction in Vermont, especially in the current political and social climate. It gives increased legal security to children born through assisted reproduction in an efficient and validating manner,” said Meg York, Senior Policy Counsel and Director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy at Family Equality. “Parents seeking to protect their children in this way will no longer endure an onerous, lengthy, and expensive adoption process, making it accessible to more families. Thank you to Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde, and all of our allies and partners in Vermont for their leadership on H.98.”

“As a family law attorney specializing in the legalities of adoption and assisted reproduction, I’m profoundly pleased H.98 was signed into law. Even before the start of the second Trump administration, we heard from many LGBTQ+ families interested in confirmatory adoption for greater legal security,” said Kurt Hughes, Senior Partner at Tarnelli & Hughes Family Law. “This law will make a tangible difference for families across Vermont. Families are formed in many different ways and our laws must continue to reflect that reality. Thank you to Governor Scott, the Legislature, and Representatives Rachelson and LaLonde for upholding Vermont’s commitment to fairness and equality for all.”

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

**New Filing Says Secretary Hegseth’s Public Statements and the Talbott Case Make Clear the DC Circuit Must Address Whether the Transgender Military Ban is Based on Hostility or ‘Animus’**

Late-night letter brief argues the Supreme Court’s explanation-less order in a different case—that did not consider animus—does not impact Talbott, and the preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the ban should remain in effect

WASHINGTON, DC—Last night, the plaintiffs in Talbott filed a letter brief with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals responding to yesterday’s Supreme Court order in the related Chelín case and alerting the court to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s open disparagement of transgender troops.

The letter brief notes that the Supreme Court order in the Chelín case yesterday is not binding on the DC Circuit’s pending resolution of the government’s request for a stay in Talbott. The Supreme Court’s order in Chelín does not explain the basis for its decision, and the district court’s reasoning in Talbott is different than in Chelín. El Talbott court found that the military ban is based on anti-transgender animus, which is not a constitutionally permissible basis for a government policy. The Chelín court did not rule on the issue of animus.

Demandantes en Talbott contra Estados Unidos (antes Talbott contra Trump), are 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits. U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott issued the first nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18 blocking implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from President Trump’s 2025 executive order. In a forceful order in which Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.”

Talbott contra Estados Unidos attorney Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi stated:

“The American people are sick of cowardly doublespeak coming out of this administration. Secretary Hegseth’s comments about transgender troops are a disgrace to the military and all those who serve.”

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals could issue its decision at any time in response to the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. The 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, and imminent discharge.

Talbott contra 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 along with legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein. GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the abogados principales en este caso, 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 contra Trump y Stockman contra Trump, que también consiguió una orden judicial preliminar a nivel nacional para bloquear esa prohibición.

Aprender más acerca de Talbott contra Estados Unidos.

Noticias

Hogar » Prensa

Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Shilling Blocking the Preliminary Injunction Protections and Greenlighting Implementation of Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

Ruling paves the way for a purge of highly qualified transgender service members

The Supreme Court of the United States today granted the Trump administration’s April 24 motion for an emergency stay in United States v. Shilling. This motion asked the Supreme Court to block a preliminary injunction preventing the ban from being implemented while the case is being heard in the courts, following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ April 18 decision to reject the Trump administration’s motion to stay and uphold the preliminary injunction.

The lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott contra Trump y Irlanda contra Hegseth, Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi y Director Jurídico del NCLR Shannon Minter, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States and responded to today’s decision:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said Jennifer Levi, directora sénior de derechos transgénero y queer de GLAD Law. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said Directora jurídica del NCLR, Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Hale Settle’s issuance of a preliminary injunction en Chelín followed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott contra Trump, where Judge Reyes issued the 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.”

Additionally, U.S. District Court Judge Christine P. O’Hearn issued a temporary restraining order in Irlanda contra Hegseth, blocking the initiation of involuntary separation proceedings against plaintiffs Master Sergeant Logan Ireland and Staff Sergeant Nicholas Bear Bade—noting their “exemplary records” and deployments that included Afghanistan, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.

Department of Defense implementation of the ban to identify and separate transgender servicemembers had been slated to begin on March 28, a rapid timeframe ex líderes militares characterized as “rushed” and “alarming,” noting that the complexity of the military personnel system requires “months of careful planning and timelines.”

The preliminary injunctions in place had protected transgender servicemembers and recruits from significant harms by preventing the Department of Defense from initiating separation proceedings or otherwise enforcing the ban. These harms included 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 contra Trump, the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s transgender military ban executive order, is on behalf of 32 plaintiffs and brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups GLAD Law and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

Irlanda contra Hegseth was filed by GLAD Law, NCLR, and Stapleton Segal Cochran LLC and Langer Grogan & Diver P.C. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking immediate court action to prevent two longstanding, high-ranking Air Force servicemembers from being discharged from the military.GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi and NCLR’s Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott y Ireland, 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 contra Trump y Stockman contra Trump, que también consiguió una orden judicial preliminar a nivel nacional para bloquear esa prohibición.

Learn more about GLAD Law and NCLR’s case, Talbott contra Estados Unidos.