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 contre 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 Directrice principale des droits des personnes transgenres et homosexuelles 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 contre 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, sont eux-mêmes transgenres et possèdent chacun plus de trente ans d'expérience dans la défense d'affaires LGBTQ+ marquantes et clés. Ensemble, Levi et Minter ont mené le combat juridique en 2017 contre l'interdiction de l'armée pour les personnes transgenres. Doe c. Trump et Stockman contre Trump, qui a également obtenu une injonction préliminaire à l'échelle nationale bloquant cette interdiction.

En savoir plus sur Talbott c. États-Unis.