Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

La loi GLAD salue les solides protections pour les personnes transgenres et les soins de santé reproductive adoptées par la Chambre du Massachusetts

Hier, la Chambre des représentants du Massachusetts a adopté un projet de loi visant à renforcer les protections étatiques en matière d'accès aux soins de santé reproductive et transgenre. Ce projet de loi a été adopté par le Sénat le 26 juin.

Ce projet de loi, qui s'appuie sur la loi Healthcare Shield de 2022, promulguée en 2022, garantit l'accès aux soins de santé protégés par la loi en interdisant aux agences d'État et aux forces de l'ordre de coopérer avec d'autres États ou avec les enquêtes fédérales sur les soins procréatifs et transgenres dispensés dans le Massachusetts, en limitant le partage des données des patients et l'accès de tiers aux dossiers médicaux, et en interdisant la surveillance inutile des médicaments sur ordonnance. Le projet de loi renforce également la protection des personnes qui fournissent ou contribuent à la fourniture de soins de santé protégés par la loi, en renforçant les protections des licences et les protections contre la discrimination de la part des compagnies d'assurance, et fournit des orientations aux tribunaux sur la manière d'aborder les lois d'autres États limitant la capacité des parents à recourir aux soins de santé transgenres pour leurs enfants.

« Ce projet de loi offre des protections importantes à un moment où l’accès aux soins de santé et aux soins de reproduction pour les personnes transgenres est de plus en plus menacé. » dit Polly Crozier, directrice de la défense des familles chez GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. « Nous sommes reconnaissants de la collaboration entre les législateurs de l'État, le procureur général et les partenaires qui ont rapidement travaillé à la mise en œuvre de la loi Shield de 2022. renforcer la protection des patients et des prestataires de soins et garantir que la politique de santé du Massachusetts soit guidée par la science et par les besoins de soins des personnes, et non par la politique. Nous sommes impatients de continuer à soutenir cet effort législatif et espérons que le projet de loi deviendra bientôt loi. »

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

**GLAD Law Responds to Braidwood Supreme Court Ruling**

“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 v. 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 submitted a friend of the court brief in Braidwood 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 Bennett 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 Braidwood 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.”

Learn more about the case.

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

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

GLAD Law Responds to Mahmoud Supreme Court Ruling

“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 v. 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 submitted a friend of the court brief in Mahmoud—together with the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, Égalité familiale, COLAGE, , Free State Justice, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, et the Trevor Project—arguing that part of the role of public schools is preparing students to participate in a pluralistic democracy.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies Mary 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.”

Learn more about the case.

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

**GLAD Law and NCLR Respond to the Skrmetti Supreme Court Ruling**

“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 in United States v. 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 American Medical Association et le American Psychological Association 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.

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi et 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 GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “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

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

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.”

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

L'Assemblée législative du Maine rejette les projets de loi ciblant les étudiants athlètes transgenres

AUGUSTA – Lundi, l'Assemblée législative du Maine a rejeté huit projets de loi ciblant les étudiants athlètes transgenres, la communauté transgenre et la loi sur les droits de l'homme du Maine. Une large coalition s'est mobilisée pour réagir, regroupant des organisations de défense de l'égalité, des professionnels de santé, des groupes de défense juridique et des citoyens ordinaires du Maine de tous âges et de tous horizons.

« Des milliers de personnes du Maine se sont rendues au Capitole, ont appelé et envoyé des courriels à leurs législateurs et se sont fermement opposés à huit projets de loi ciblant notre communauté », a déclaré Gia Drew, directrice générale d'EqualityMaine. « Nous sommes reconnaissants envers les membres de l'Assemblée législative du Maine qui ont écouté et contribué à faire échouer ces projets de loi néfastes. Notre communauté est résiliente et nous voulons que chaque personne transgenre du Maine sache qu'elle est aimée, qu'elle n'est pas seule et que nous serons à ses côtés. »

La législature a examiné et rejeté huit projets de loi :

LD 233Loi visant à interdire aux hommes biologiques de participer aux programmes et activités sportifs scolaires conçus pour les femmes lorsque l'école bénéficie d'un financement de l'État ;
LD 868Loi visant à assurer l’équité et la sécurité dans les sports, les toilettes, les vestiaires et le logement dans les écoles élémentaires, secondaires et postsecondaires;
LD 1002Loi visant à protéger l’identité des enfants en exigeant que les écoles publiques utilisent le nom et le sexe indiqués sur le certificat de naissance d’un enfant ;
LD 1134Loi visant à interdire aux hommes de participer à des sports féminins ou d’utiliser des installations réservées aux femmes ;
LD 1704Loi interdisant à une unité administrative scolaire d’adopter une politique permettant à un élève d’utiliser des toilettes réservées au sexe opposé.
LD 1337Loi visant à modifier la loi sur les droits de l'homme du Maine concernant les athlètes féminines et la sécurité dans les refuges pour femmes non mixtes ;
LD 1432, Loi visant à supprimer la prise en compte de l'identité de genre de la loi sur les droits de la personne du Maine ; et
LD 380Loi modifiant certaines lois concernant les services de soins de santé affirmant le genre

« Les électeurs du Maine ont clairement indiqué il y a 20 ans qu'il était mal de discriminer quelqu'un parce qu'il est transgenre, et la Cour de justice du Maine s'est prononcée en 2014 pour affirmer que les écoles doivent traiter les élèves transgenres de manière égale, y compris l'accès aux toilettes ou aux vestiaires de l'école », a déclaré Mary Bonauto, directrice principale des droits civiques et des stratégies juridiques, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law).

« Soyons clairs : ces projets de loi constituent une attaque directe contre nos droits, notre dignité et nos vies », a déclaré Bre Danvers Kidman, codirectrice de MaineTransNet. « Notre communauté s'est soulevée, a fait front commun avec ses alliés dans tout l'État et les a réduits au silence. Les personnes transgenres n'existent pas pour être instrumentalisées politiquement. Nos droits civiques ne sont pas sujets à débat. Nous ne partirons pas. Nous savons qui nous sommes, nous savons ce que nous méritons et nous ne cesserons jamais de nous battre pour vivre en sécurité, libres et visibles partout dans cet État. »

Plus de 900 habitants du Maine ont témoigné contre les tentatives visant à priver les élèves transgenres de l'accès aux soins de santé et à leur interdire la pratique de sports scolaires lors d'une audience publique en mai. Cette audience a rassemblé un échantillon représentatif de notre État : parents, enseignants, camarades de classe, athlètes actuels et anciens, responsables religieux, etc., tous unis pour défendre la dignité, l'équité et l'inclusion. Leurs témoignages ont fait état d'un consensus clair : ces attaques ne reflètent pas les valeurs du Maine et n'ont pas leur place dans nos lois.

« Les étudiants athlètes transgenres sont pris pour cible par certains des hommes les plus riches et les plus puissants du monde. Nous sommes reconnaissants du travail remarquable de nos alliés au Parlement qui ont défendu ce qui est juste, et des membres de la communauté trans qui ont raconté leur histoire et démontré les dommages que ces terribles projets de loi auraient causés », a déclaré Destie Hohman Sprague, directrice générale du Maine Women's Lobby.

« Chaque élève devrait être traité avec bienveillance et respect, et pouvoir aller à l'école et faire du sport sans crainte. Ces projets de loi n'auraient pas seulement porté préjudice aux filles transgenres, ils auraient porté préjudice à tout le monde et auraient soumis toutes les filles du Maine à des procédures invasives portant atteinte à leur vie privée », a déclaré Sue Campbell, directrice générale d'OUT Maine.

La coalition reste unie et prête à répondre aux futures menaces à l'égalité et aux droits humains dans le Maine. Alors que les tentatives visant à réduire les protections ou à cibler les communautés vulnérables continuent de se multiplier à travers le pays, les défenseurs des droits, les organisations et les membres des communautés de tout l'État sont prêts à défendre les valeurs de compassion, de courage et d'humanité du Maine.

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

Les militaires transgenres doivent décider aujourd'hui comment ils seront purgés de l'armée : « volontairement » ou involontairement

“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.” GLAD Law et 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.”

GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi et NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys in Talbott c. États-Unis (formerly Talbott v. 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 c. Trump et Stockman contre 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 GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “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 NCLR Legal Director 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 c. États-Unis, and a second legal challenge to the ban, Shilling v. USA, are continuing through the courts. Talbott c. États-Unis 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 c. États-Unis (formerly Talbott v. 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 et NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C., Kropf Moseley PLCC, and Zalkind, Duncan + Bernstein.

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

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 concluded, 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.

Learn about the Utah legislature’s report.

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

La nouvelle loi du Vermont sur l'adoption confirmative renforce la sécurité des familles LGBTQ+

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 Loi sur la filiation du 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.”

Nouvelles

Maison » Presse

**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 Shilling 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 Shilling 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 Shilling does not explain the basis for its decision, and the district court’s reasoning in Talbott is different than in Shilling. The 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 Shilling court did not rule on the issue of animus.

Plaintiffs in Talbott c. États-Unis (formerly Talbott v. 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 c. États-Unis attorney GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights 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 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 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 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 c. Trump et Stockman contre Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

En savoir plus sur Talbott c. États-Unis.