National/Federal Know Your Rights - Page 4 of 57 - GLAD Law
Skip Header to Content
GLAD Logo Skip Primary Navigation to Content

Search

News

Students and Families Move to Challenge Trump Executive Order Banning Transgender Sports Participation

GLAD Law and ACLU of NH ask court to expand existing NH case to challenge President Trump’s executive orders banning transgender girls from participating in school sports

Today, the organizations representing the families of New Hampshire students challenging a state law that categorically bans transgender girls from participating in school sports asked the court to expand their case to include a legal challenge to President Trump’s executive orders that ban transgender girls and women from sports nationwide.

“The Trump Administration’s executive orders amount to a coordinated campaign to prevent transgender people from functioning in society. The systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions is chilling, but targeting young people in schools, denying them support and essential opportunities during their most vulnerable years, is especially cruel,” said Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), which is representing the plaintiffs along with the ACLU of New Hampshire (ACLU of NH). “School sports are an important part of education—something no child should be denied simply because of who they are. Our clients Parker and Iris simply want to go to school, learn, and play on teams with their peers.” 

GLAD Law and the ACLU of NH filed the motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in the case Tirrell and Turmelle v. Edelblut, a federal lawsuit challenging HB 1205, a 2024 state law banning all transgender girls in grades 5-12 from participating in school sports in New Hampshire public schools. Last September, the court ordered that students Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle be allowed to play sports during the litigation, ruling that HB 1205 discriminates against transgender students in violation of Title IX and the U.S. Constitution.  

“We’re expanding our lawsuit to challenge President Trump’s executive orders because, like the state law, it excludes, singles out, and discriminates against transgender students and insinuates that they are not deserving of the same educational opportunities as all other students. Every child in New Hampshire and across the country has a right to equal opportunities at school and all students do better when they have access to resources that improve their mental, emotional, and physical health,” said Henry Klementowicz, Deputy Legal Director at ACLU of NH.

In asking the court to add federal defendants to the lawsuit to formally challenge the Trump administration’s executive orders to ban transgender female athletes, GLAD Law and ACLU of NH contend that the Trump administration’s February 5 executive order, along with parts of a January 20 executive order, subject Parker and Iris to discrimination in violation of federal equal protection guarantees and their rights under Title IX. The organizations also assert the orders unlawfully subject the girls’ respective schools to the threat of losing federal funding for allowing Parker and Iris to play school sports. 

Parker Tirrell is a tenth-grader who plays on her high school soccer team. Iris Turmelle is a ninth-grader who is looking forward to trying out for tennis this spring. 

“I love playing soccer and we had a great season last fall. I just want to go to school like other kids and keep playing the game I love,” said Parker Tirrell.

“We were so grateful and proud to watch Parker play soccer with her friends last fall, and to see the joy it brings her. Her father and I just want her to be happy, healthy, and know she belongs—the same things any parent wants for their child. It’s just not right for the federal government to come down so hard on a kid,” said Sara Tirrell, Parker’s mother. 

“The chance to try out for tennis means new teammates, new friends, and a sense of fun and belonging. I just want the same opportunities as other girls at my school,” said Iris Turmelle.

“It’s heartbreaking to have the federal government so aggressively go after our daughter,” said Amy Manzelli and Chad Turmelle, Iris’s parents. “Iris is looking forward to playing spring sports and being part of a team. We just want her to be able to attend school and get the most out of her education—on and off the court.”

President Trump’s February 5 executive order banning transgender girls and women from athletics is the latest in a series of executive orders and related policy changes deliberately aimed at broadly restricting the rights of transgender Americans in public life. Since taking office Jan. 20, his administration has worked to roll back access to non-discrimination protections, health care, equal educational opportunities, military service, and vital identity documents for transgender people.

Parker, Iris, and their families are represented by Chris Erchull, Ben Klein, Michael Haley, and Jennifer Levi at GLAD Law, Henry Klementowicz and Gilles Bissonnette at the ACLU of NH, and Louis Lobel, Kevin DeJong, and Elaine Blais at Goodwin. 

Today’s filing comprises of three documents:

Find additional filings and more information about the case.

Blog

From the Front Lines: The Fight for Transgender Rights Is a Fight for Democracy

Blog by Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Queer and Transgender Rights

Jennifer Levi in a light blue button-down shirt in front of a blurred green outdoor background
Jennifer Levi

With a (tiny) bit of distance from the gloom of my D.C. visit, I have had time to reflect on an intense week of being in and out (and in) Court. Here is what I’ve got. It’s a work in progress as we all take in the enormity of what we are facing. While I remain laser-focused on my area of expertise – defending transgender rights – I’m acutely aware that many other communities are under similar attack. My fervent prayer is that there are fierce and tireless advocates in those trenches too. My lane is and has been transgender advocacy. Here are some reflections from my foxhole.

The systematic targeting of transgender Americans represents far more than isolated acts of discrimination. Last week, during our hearing seeking emergency relief from the military ban, the judge cut through the government’s pretense. She asked the government’s lawyer how she could possibly defend, as rational, a policy that literally declares that being transgender violates the values of honor, truthfulness, discipline, selflessness and humility – even though transgender service members must meet the exact same rigorous standards as their peers.

And then she went further, asking the government to reconcile this blatantly incoherent stance with the administration’s sweeping attacks on transgender people – far beyond the military and in so many disparate contexts. While our side will certainly argue that all these actions reveal the same underlying animus, what struck me most was the judge’s chilling, methodical listing of what this administration has done in less than two weeks. 

It wasn’t my list—it was hers, and what you read here draws from the actual court transcript. I share this list for two reasons: first, to show the breathtaking scope of attacks on transgender Americans, and second, to reveal how targeting this vulnerable minority is being used to systematically undermine core American institutions, paving the way for authoritarian control.

The administration has:

  • Rescinded all existing federal policies protecting transgender people from sex and disability discrimination
  • Revoked the ability to obtain passports and federal documents reflecting gender identity
  • Removed State Department safety information for transgender travelers
  • Changed “LGBT” to “LGB” across federal websites
  • Deleted CDC public health research and guidance about transgender people
  • Denied transition-related healthcare to federal employees
  • Announced plans to cut federal funding from organizations that serve or recognize transgender people
  • Moved to revoke equal access protections in homeless shelters
  • Directed federal prisons to deny medical treatment and house transgender people by birth sex
  • Ordered law enforcement to prosecute school officials who recognize transgender students

Each of these actions alone is disconcerting. Together, they reveal a calculated strategy to push institutional boundaries and normalize exclusion.

This playbook is dangerously effective:

  • Target a small, vulnerable group most Americans don’t know personally
  • Use them to test institutional boundaries
  • Create chaos in core institutions (military, healthcare, prisons, schools)
  • Establish precedents for broader rights restrictions
  • Normalize the weaponization of federal agencies against minorities
  • Stun and intimidate people into fear and silence

This is how democracy erodes – not all at once (though this feels like all at once, right about now), but by first establishing that vulnerable minority groups can be systematically stripped of rights and protections. 

But we are not powerless. State and local institutions—our schools, healthcare systems, and civil rights enforcement agencies—must resist federal pressure, and we must stand with them in that fight. In progressive states especially, we must work with our local leaders—pushing them to take meaningful action and providing the public support they need to resist federal pressure. 

There is time to stop this erosion of democracy, but only if we call out these attacks for what they are—test cases for authoritarian control—and build (and rebuild) solidarity across communities to resist the politics of division.

So grateful to be in this struggle with all of you! And seriously grateful for all the ways everyone across GLAD Law has supported the community as best we can over these challenging three (3!) weeks.

Support GLAD Law’s Work
Sign Up for Updates

Blog

From the Front Lines: Fighting for Transgender Rights in a Critical Moment

Blog by Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Queer and Transgender Rights

Jennifer Levi in a light blue button-down shirt in front of a blurred green outdoor background
Jennifer Levi

I’m writing this from a hotel room in DC, looking across the green to the Capitol, after one of the most intense weeks of my 30-year legal career. The pace and scope of what we’re facing is unprecedented, but GLAD Law is doing what we’ve always done: standing firm, acting swiftly, and fighting strategically for justice.

This past Monday, I caught a late flight to DC for an emergency hearing Tuesday morning. We were defending transgender women who had been suddenly removed from their general population housing in women’s prisons, placed in special housing units (SHU), and faced imminent transfer to men’s facilities. They were also at risk of having their essential medical care terminated.

While still in that hearing, I was called to chambers for another emergency matter – this one involving our challenge to the military ban. We had just over two hours to prepare. When we first filed our challenge, we thought there might be a brief window before the ban went into effect. That changed within hours, when we learned of a transgender woman pulled from basic training and pressured to sign a document denying who she is. When she couldn’t sign the form, she was removed from her barracks and placed in an isolated room with a single cot away from her peers. In the emergency hearing, when the government couldn’t assure the Court they would stop restricting her training, we knew we had to act fast.

By late yesterday evening, after intense legal wrangling, we secured a crucial ruling protecting our plaintiffs from any changes to their conditions of service. It’s an important victory, but just one battle in what we know will be a long campaign.

What we’re facing now is different from previous challenges to transgender rights. This isn’t just about specific policies or programs – it’s a coordinated effort to prevent transgender people from functioning in society at all. After decades during which transgender Americans have built lives, served their country, and contributed to their communities under the protection of civil rights laws, we’re seeing systematic attempts to shut us out of public life entirely.

I’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and I stand on the shoulders of giants – Mary Bonauto, Ben Klein, Gary Buseck, and our founder John Ward, among others. GLAD Law has always been courageous, nimble, strategic, and bold. That’s exactly what this moment demands.

These early court victories are crucial – they give us time to build stronger protections and help the American public understand what’s really at stake. Because this isn’t just about transgender rights. It’s about whether we will remain a nation governed by law rather than arbitrary power.

Looking out my window at the Capitol, I won’t pretend I’m not distressed by what I see. I do question our future. But I remain absolutely resolute in doing this work, as does everyone at GLAD Law. We’ve faced seemingly impossible odds before. We’ve prevailed because we’ve stayed focused, strategic, and unwavering in our commitment to justice.

The path ahead won’t be easy. But I know that with sustained determination and support, we can protect our communities and democracy. Thank you for standing with us in this critical moment.

Support GLAD Law’s Work
Sign Up for Updates

Blog

The Resistance Brief: This week in the fight for justice 

Blog by Ricardo Martinez (he/him), Executive Director

As a 14-year-old kid on a field trip to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York City 30 years ago, I learned about ACT UP and the importance of responding to a crisis with urgency and strategic action.

GLAD Law has taken immediate steps to challenge the Trump administration’s harrowing and unconstitutional Executive Orders targeting our community, filing three new cases in the last two weeks. We secured an order blocking enforcement of Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Trump’s January 20 so-called “gender ideology” order. Those sections unlawfully seek to house transgender women in men’s prisons – exposing them to an extremely high risk of harassment, abuse, violence, and sexual assault – and to take away necessary medical care. We also filed a challenge to Trump’s transgender military ban Executive Order, which demeans and dishonors transgender servicemembers. GLAD Law attorneys were in court over multiple days this week ensuring our plaintiffs will not face separation from the military or other adverse treatment while we plan for the first full hearing in the case on February 18. Read the op-ed from Jennifer Levi and Shannon Minter, the lead attorneys on the case.

The swift, strategic steps we have taken to use the law to stop, delay, and reduce the harm of Trump’s Executive Orders have been nothing short of inspiring. 

The GLAD Law team has also been working hard to provide support and guidance to our entire community during this tremendously destabilizing time. Our confidential legal helpline, GLAD Law Answers, fielded 341 intake calls in January alone. We also hosted an educational briefing about the current legal landscape for which over 1600 people registered. We will continue to provide information and guidance for our community as we navigate the weeks and months ahead. 

We are experiencing a sustained campaign aimed at making it impossible for transgender people to function in society. And we know that denying basic rights to one group of people without resistance and defiant opposition puts the rights of all of us at risk. By taking quick and decisive action, we send a message that we intend to continue our legacy of protecting the rights and liberty of all LGBTQ+ people and those with HIV and that it is not permissible to tread on anyone’s rights. We, the people, will continue to defend the fundamental principle that equal protection under the law is guaranteed to all of us without exception. 

At the same time, we continue the necessary work to defend against any attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision, protect LGBTQ+ families, increase access and remove barriers to PrEP, and strengthen existing nondiscrimination laws. 

Before I began my tenure as Executive Director of GLAD Law, I was familiar with our legacy, but it wasn’t until I began working with this talented team that I understood the enormous value we bring to the movement. I wish you could see the countless ways they contribute every day to making the world a better place. I’ve watched our staff go above and beyond to ensure that we not only have a chance to survive the next four years but that we are concurrently building towards a future that delivers the healing, reconciliation, prosperity and collective safety we all deserve. 

What to know, what to do:  

  • Access our list of resources for LGBTQ+ People Under the Trump Administration 
  • Sign up to receive updates on GLAD Law’s challenges to Trump’s Executive Orders and other important work for LGBTQ+ rights
  • Check out our updated list of challenges to Trump’s Executive Orders by GLAD Law and others fighting for LGBTQ+ justice
Donate Today
Reach Out to GLAD Law Answers

Read more editions of the Resistance Brief.

News

Trump’s Sports Order is Part of a Sustained Campaign Targeting Transgender People

President Trump signed an executive order barring transgender girls from participating in school sports.

Ricardo Martinez, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), made the following statement: 

This order banning transgender students from sports is part of a sustained campaign aimed at making it impossible for transgender people to function in society. The avalanche of executive orders issued over the last two weeks cuts across every area of life – from employment to healthcare, from travel, to social services, to schools. 

The systematic targeting of transgender people across American institutions is chilling, but targeting young people in schools, denying them support during their most vulnerable years, is especially cruel. These policies will have devastating consequences for years to come. 

The President cannot change the law or the Constitution. We will challenge this order.

Blog

Making Sense of the Trump Administration’s Anti-LGBTQ+ Executive Orders

NOTE: This blog was published on February 4, 2025. Since then, the Trump administration has issued new executive orders impacting our community. For more up-to-date information, visit our page, “Information for LGBTQ+ People Under the Trump Administration.”

Blog by Ricardo Martinez, Executive Director

As we expected, we’ve seen multiple directives coming from the Trump administration in its first two weeks with the potential to affect the lives of LGBTQ+ people and their families. I know it’s overwhelming and you’re worried. GLAD Law will do our very best to keep you up to date.

Executive Orders Explained

To begin, most of the new directives came in the form of Executive Orders (EOs) from President Trump. So what, exactly, is an EO? 

An EO is a directive from the President, usually issued to guide federal agencies in their work.

EOs cannot change federal law, like Title VII and Title IX, which provide protections to LGBTQ+ people. 

EOs can’t change our constitution and the protections we have as LGBTQ+ people under it. They cannot change the role of our courts in interpreting laws and their constitutionality.

Further, state laws still exist and, in many areas, they can address some key concerns we have heard from community members. Visit our LGBTQ+ Protections page for information we have compiled in response to actions at the federal level.

That doesn’t mean EOs cannot cause harm, chaos and confusion, as we saw last week with an order that froze federal funding. 

Implementing EOs can take time and if they’re unconstitutional, they’ll be challenged in court, as we have seen with an EO purporting to end birthright citizenship. 

In fact, GLAD Law and our partner organizations are already challenging some of the new directives attacking transgender people, which we’ll dive into next.

Sex Discrimination Executive Order

This order is an attempt to regulate and control people’s lives. The Trump administration wants to define all people by their reproductive capacity—an alarming attempt to undo the basic protections that allow transgender people to go about their daily lives. It’s about dictating how trans people, and their families will be allowed to live.

This EO does the following:

  • directs the State Department to stop issuing passports that accurately reflect a trans person’s gender
  • directs the Bureau of Prisons to deny incarcerated transgender people healthcare and appropriate housing
  • directs the Department of Housing and Urban Development to reverse rules that give trans people safe access to shelters
  • requires federal agencies to remove mention of gender identity from language and forms

STATUS: GLAD Law was first to file a challenge to Sections 4(a) and 4(c) of this EO, which directs the federal Bureau of Prisons to house transgender women in men’s prisons and to unlawfully withhold necessary medical care. Last week, we secured a temporary restraining order in our case Maria Moe v Trump that prevented our client, a transgender woman, from being transferred to a men’s facility and ensured her continuing necessary medical care. We are now awaiting the judge’s further orders in this case, and have filed a second case in D.C. on behalf of incarcerated transgender women also at risk of transfer to a men’s facility and withdrawal of medical care.

Transgender Military Ban Executive Order

This is an order that intends to ban transgender people from enlisting and serving in the military.

Transgender service members must meet the same objective qualifications as everyone else. If they can meet those criteria, it’s harmful for everyone to deny them enlistment or subject them to discharge. Skill, discipline and courage—that’s what matters to military service, not identity.

STATUS: GLAD Law and NCLR filed a federal lawsuit on January 28 challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender people from serving and enlisting in the military. On February 3, we filed for a preliminary injunction in the case, known as Talbott v. Trump, to keep the EO from being implemented during the lawsuit. On February 4, we filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, asking the court for an emergency ruling to stop service members from being separated unlawfully.

Restricting Health Care for Transgender Adolescents Executive Order

This order is intended to be a broad ban on health care for transgender young people under age 19. It seeks to deny coverage for medically necessary care to transgender dependents of federal employees and seeks to ban federal funding for any healthcare organization that provides this necessary and proven healthcare for transgender people under 19. 

This EO continues the Trump Administration’s extreme, needless, and unconstitutional attack on vulnerable transgender Americans. It will deliberately make the daily lives of a very small group of young people and their families painful and more difficult—it’s simply cruel and wrong. 

STATUS: The implementation of this order cannot happen overnight. There is no immediate legal reason for hospitals or clinics to change the care they are providing to transgender youth. While we have unfortunately heard reports of a handful of hospitals pausing care, the majority are continuing to provide care as usual.

We fully expect this executive order to be challenged because it is blatantly unconstitutional. It’s important to remember that a president’s powers are not unlimited—the constitution, federal courts and our democratic system serve as a defense against this type of overreach. 

Removing Protections for LGBTQ+ Youth Schools Executive Order

This EO tries to tell schools to deny the existence of transgender people altogether. It attempts to ban federally funded educational institutions from respecting the identities of transgender and gender non-conforming students, including blocking them from using the correct restroom or participating in athletics, and forces schools to out student to parents if the student requests to be referred to with a different name or pronoun, even if the outing could put the student at risk of harm.

STATUS: While this Executive Order focuses on funding-mechanisms, the legal obligations our public schools have to protect all students’ right to learn remain unchanged. No Executive Order can change the expertise and dedication teachers bring to supporting every learner in the classroom. Fostering supportive environments where every student feels valued and can thrive is as important as ever. We expect this order to be challenged in court.

Please continue to check this space for news and updates about policy changes that affect LGBTQ+ people and their families and how GLAD Law and our partners are responding to each of them. If you have specific questions or concerns about how these changes may affect you individually, please contact us at GLAD Law Answers, our free and confidential legal information and referral service. 

Please take care of yourself, and others as you can. We’re stronger together.

Get the latest on GLAD Law’s work toward justice
by joining our email list

Get Updates

News

Servicemembers Seek Immediate Block of Transgender Military Ban

GLAD Law and NCLR, representing six transgender servicemembers and two individuals seeking to enlist, have asked a D.C. federal court to block enforcement of Trump’s transgender military ban while their case against it, Talbott v. Trump, proceeds

WASHINGTON, D.C.— GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) today asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block enforcement of President Trump’s January 27, 2025, order banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, while litigation against the ban proceeds.

The motion asserts that President Trump’s ban violates transgender servicemembers’ right to equal protection, singling them out with an “irrational and prejudicial” policy based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with fitness to serve.

“Thousands of highly qualified transgender Americans have been serving with distinction for years,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law). “President Trump’s January 27 order denigrates honorable transgender servicemembers who have put their lives on the line for their country. It is a stark and reckless reversal of policy that weakens our military, pushes out experienced troops, and turns away skilled individuals who meet rigorous standards and are ready to serve.”

“Military service demands one thing: the ability to do the job,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at NCLR. “Transgender servicemembers consistently meet and exceed military standards. Those willing to risk their lives in service deserve our respect, not a discriminatory ban that ignores their proven capabilities.”

Both the Pentagon and the RAND Corporation spent years studying service by transgender personnel and concluded there is no military reason to prohibit transgender service members from serving openly. In a declaration in support of the plaintiffs, Alex Wagner, Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserve Affairs and Former Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Army, explains why a transgender ban harms military readiness.

“Personnel policies that allow transgender service members to be evaluated based on merit rather than transgender status strengthen the military’s mission of protecting the United States; they do not jeopardize it,” concludes Wagner in his declaration. “The true power of an All-Volunteer Force that reflects the diversity of the American people is in that it enables those that don’t serve to understand it as an extension of their interests. Anyone with a propensity to serve who meets our high entry and retention standards and is courageous enough to pledge that they’ll support and defend the Constitution, should be able to do so.”

In addition to Wagner, declarations in support of the plaintiffs were submitted by:

  • Yvette Bourcicot, Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Man Power and Reserve Affairs
  • Gilbert Cisneros, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
  • Shawn Skelly, Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

GLAD Law and NCLR filed Talbott v. Trump January 28, 2025, on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. The plaintiffs in Talbott v. Trump are also represented by Joseph Wardenski, Principal Attorney, Wardenski P.C.

Case documents for Talbott v. Trump, including the motion and memo in support of preliminary injunction, plaintiff and expert declarations, supporting exhibits, and the original complaint are available on our website.

About the Plaintiffs

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.”

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.

Doe v. Bondi

Case Overview

GLAD Law, NCLR, Brown Goldstein & Levy LLP, and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP represent three transgender women in a case challenging a federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy directed by President Trump which would override Prison Rape Elimination Act protections for vulnerable populations, including transgender women, and would terminate all medical care for gender dysphoria for incarcerated individuals. As a result of the policy, which stems from a January 20, 2025, Executive Order issued by President Trump, the plaintiffs were at imminent risk of being moved to a men’s facility and having their necessary medical care withdrawn. 

The complaint, filed January 30, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the policies required by the new executive order violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are arbitrary and capricious and also directly conflict with a Prison Rape Elimination Act regulation requiring prison officials to make housing determinations based on an individualized assessment of safety and security. The complaint also alleges that the policies required by the new Executive Order are unconstitutional because they discriminate based on a person’s transgender status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 

This case was previously called Doe v. McHenry. 

Case Updates

On March 19, the court granted a preliminary injunction for 2 additional plaintiffs that were added to the case. These women had been moved to male facilities putting them at tremendous risk. The judge ordered BOP to move them back to their women’s facilities and to resume their healthcare.

On February 24, the court extended the preliminary injunction to included the 9 additional plaintiffs.

On February 21, we filed an amended complaint adding 9 additional plaintiffs, incarcerated transgender women who had been informed they would be immediately transferred to a men’s facility and have their healthcare terminated.

On February 19, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in our case representing three incarcerated transgender women at risk of being transferred to a men’s facility and having their necessary medical care stopped. This blocks the Bureau of Prisons from enforcing against our clients President Trump’s first Executive Order attempting to deny the existence of transgender people, while our case against it continues. We are moving to protect as many of the transgender women in the women’s BOP units as we can and are adding anyone we hear from in the same circumstances.

Doe v. Bondi is one of the three lawsuits GLAD Law and NCLR have filed challenging sections of the Executive Order that directs the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house transgender women in men’s prisons and to unlawfully withhold necessary medical care. Learn more about the other cases Moe v. Trump and Jones v. Bondi.

Moe v. Trump

GLAD Law, with NCLR and Lowenstein Sandler LLP,  represents a transgender woman in her case challenging a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy directed by President Trump which would override Prison Rape Elimination Act protections for vulnerable populations, including transgender women, and would terminate all medical care for gender dysphoria for incarcerated individuals.  

Maria Moe (a pseudonym to protect her safety) is a transgender woman who transitioned well before her initial arrest several years ago and has been housed exclusively in women’s facilities. As a result of the policy, which stems from a January 20, 2025, Executive Order issued by President Trump, Moe was at imminent risk of being moved to a men’s facility and having her necessary medical care withdrawn.

GLAD Law, NCLR, and Lowenstein Sandler LLP filed a complaint on January 26 in federal district court in Massachusetts. The court granted a temporary restraining order that same day ensuring that Moe would remain in the women’s facility and have access to medical care while the court considers further relief.

The complaint alleges that the policies required by the new executive order violate the Administrative Procedure Act because they are arbitrary and capricious and also directly conflict with a Prison Rape Elimination Act regulation requiring prison officials to make housing determinations based on an individualized assessment of safety and security. The complaint also alleges that the policies required by the new Executive Order are unconstitutional because they discriminate based on a person’s transgender status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Moe v. Trump is one of the three lawsuits GLAD Law and NCLR have filed challenging sections of the Executive Order that directs the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to house transgender women in men’s prisons and to unlawfully withhold necessary medical care. Learn more about the other cases Doe v. Bondi and Jones v. Bondi.

Talbott v. USA

Jump to Documents

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 LGBTQ 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.”

Media and Press

en_USEnglish
es_MXEspañol de México en_USEnglish
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

To learn more, visit our privacy policy.