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.

Transgender Servicemembers in Talbott Urge the Supreme Court to Continue to Prevent Implementation of the Transgender Military Ban

Brief calls out harm of “unprecedented” and “unAmerican” plan to target transgender servicemembers for immediate discharge; even Trump’s short-lived 2018 ban never resulted in more than a temporary pause in recruitment

WASHINGTON, DC—Hoy, los demandantes, 32 militares y reclutas transgénero, en Talbott contra Estados Unidos (antes Talbott contra Trump) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the Court to leave multiple preliminary injunctions in place preventing implementation of President Trump’s transgender military ban.

On April 18, the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court en United States v. Shilling, requesting that it stay the preliminary injunction in that case, which was put in place by the courts to prevent irreparable harms associated with the ban while the case is being heard in court. Both the constitutionality and lack of any rational reason or data underpinning the ban have come under fire during this litigation. Past filings have indicated there are currently thousands of distinguished transgender servicemembers in critical roles who have deployed globally and earned numerous commendations.

On March 18, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes emitió una orden judicial preliminar a nivel nacional blocking implementation of the transgender military ban in Talbott. 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 halted implementation of the ban and protected 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. On March 28, U.S. District Court Judge for the 9^th Circuit Benjamin H. Settle issued a second nationwide preliminary injunction en Shilling contra Trump.

Los abogados principales en Talbott contra Trump, Director Senior de Derechos Transgénero y Queer de GLAD Law Jennifer Levi y Director Jurídico del NCLR Shannon Minter, emitió las siguientes declaraciones:

El gobierno no ha proporcionado, ni puede proporcionar, ninguna razón racional que justifique la purga sistemática de tropas transgénero que cumplen con todos los estándares de desempeño. De hecho, el gobierno ha reconocido que cada demandante en servicio activo es honorable, disciplinado y apto para servir. Jennifer Levi, directora sénior de derechos transgénero y queer de GLAD Law. “In the absence of reason or data, the government has attempted to frame this insidious ban as a run-of-the-mill medical policy. But the naked animus within the language of the ban—and its focus on lobbing insults at the ‘honesty,’ ‘discipline,’ and ‘integrity’ of all transgender servicemembers makes clear that the ban is meant to describe people, not a medical condition. Existing policies do not describe a person with diabetes or a heart condition as dishonest or lacking integrity.”

“The government falsely claims its request for a stay would only require the Supreme Court to do what has been done before, when in reality, it is asking for a shocking, unprecedented purge of thousands of current servicemembers for a reason unrelated to their ability to serve,” said Directora Jurídica del NCLR, Shannon Minter. “This type of mass purge has never before happened in our nation’s history. It would cause an avalanche of irreparable harms that would stain the records of thousands of our nation’s heroes who have been deployed and served around the globe in critical missions. There is no precedent for such a devastating and wholly un-American betrayal of dedicated troops.”

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 Ley GLAD y NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

Jennifer Levi de GLAD Law y Shannon Minter del NCLR, el abogados principales en este caso, son transgénero y cada uno tiene más de tres décadas de experiencia litigando casos LGBTQ+ emblemáticos y clave. Juntos, Levi y Minter lideraron la lucha legal en 2017 contra la prohibición militar de las personas transgénero en Doe contra Trump y Stockman contra Trump, que también consiguió una orden judicial preliminar a nivel nacional para bloquear esa prohibición.

A link to the full amicus brief is disponible aquí.