News

Home » Washington, D.C.

**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 v. USA (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 v. USA 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 v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about Talbott v. USA.

News

Home » Washington, D.C.

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 v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director 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 GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “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 NCLR Legal Director 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 in Shilling followed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott v. 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 Ireland v. 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 former military leaders 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 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 and NCLR with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

Ireland v. 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 and 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 v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

Learn more about GLAD Law and NCLR’s case, Talbott v. USA.

News

Home » Washington, D.C.

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—Today, the plaintiffs, 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits, in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. 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 in 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 issued a nationwide preliminary injunction 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 in Shilling v. Trump.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, issued the following statements:

“The government has not and cannot provide any rational reason to justify the systematic purge of transgender troops who are meeting all performance standards. In fact, the government has actually conceded that each active-duty plaintiff is honorable, disciplined, and fit to serve,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “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 NCLR Legal Director 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.”

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 v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.

A link to the full amicus brief is available here.

News

Home » Washington, D.C.

Transgender Servicemembers in Talbott Push Back Today Against Another Attempt to Implement Trump’s Military Ban

Lead attorneys for the plaintiffs call the ban an “alarming threat to the trust needed to maximize national security” that would “permanently damage the careers of thousands of individuals who have served honorably and sacrificed for our country”

WASHINGTON, DC—Today, the plaintiffs, 32 transgender servicemembers and recruits, in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump) filed an opposition to the government’s motion for an emergency stay. The motion for an emergency stay is yet another attempt by the government to move forward with implementation of the transgender military ban stemming from President Trump’s January executive order, which had previously been scheduled to occur on March 28. Both the constitutionality of this ban and the lack of any rational reason or data underpinning it have come under fire during this litigation.

Today’s motion calls out that the government has not and cannot meet the extraordinary burden needed to “greenlight a purge of transgender servicemembers,” many of whom are distinguished members of our armed forces filling critical roles and “who have deployed globally and earned numerous commendations.” It further notes that proceeding forward with the ban would result in irreparable harm against thousands of currently serving transgender servicemembers.

The government had also sought an administrative stay in Talbott in an effort to prevent the nationwide preliminary injunction from going into effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia put mechanisms in place to prevent government action that would negatively impact any servicemembers in response to the ban.

On March 18, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes had issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the transgender military ban. 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 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, a process used to address instances of misconduct.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, shared their reactions to today’s opposition to the government’s motion for an emergency stay:

“The government has not and cannot provide any rational reason to justify the systematic purge of transgender troops who are meeting all performance standards. In fact, the government has actually conceded that each active-duty plaintiff is honorable, disciplined, and fit to serve,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Enacting the ban and moving forward with this abrupt policy reversal would erode essential trust within military units and permanently damage the careers of thousands of individuals who have served honorably and sacrificed for our country.”

“The government continues to wind its way through the process, invoking every legal tool possible in an attempt to implement a ban that is both unconstitutional and an alarming threat to the trust needed to maximize national security,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “The human story behind the cost of this ban is gut-wrenching, as we hear from servicemembers and their families for whom the ban would end careers and destroy lives.”

Learn more about Talbott v. USA.

Jones v. Bondi

Home » Washington, D.C.

Update: We secured preliminary injunction orders preventing our clients in three separate lawsuits—Moe v. Trump, Doe v. Bondi, and Jones v. Bondi from being transferred to men’s facilities and ensuring their continued access to necessary medical care.

The Trump administration has appealed those preliminary injunctions to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the three cases have been consolidated for briefing and ruling on this appeal. Learn more about the appeal.

Case Overview

On February 10, 2025, GLAD Law, along with National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) and Lowenstein Sandler LLP, filed a federal constitutional challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which Trump issued just hours after his inauguration on January 20, 2025.

The Order directly targets transgender people by attempting to deny them legal recognition under federal law and to strip them of long-established legal protections with the stroke of a pen. Under this Order, transgender women who are incarcerated in federal prisons will be unlawfully transferred to men’s facilities and denied medically necessary health care.

Our client Jane Jones is an adult transgender woman who has lived as a woman for years. Previous to the Executive Order, she was serving her sentence in a minimum security women’s facility. During her term of incarceration, she has always been treated as a woman by federal correctional officials and her peers. Other than during a brief period of time after the issuance of the Executive Order, she has never been housed in a men’s facility.

Jane is not safe in any men’s prison. She will be at an extremely high risk of harassment, abuse, violence, and sexual assault. Not only that, but being cut off from her medical care will cause additional harm. In addition to being unconstitutional, Trump’s Executive Order is disruptive and cruel, and singles out transgender women like Jane, putting them in additional harm’s way within the prison system.

This case was originally called Jones v. Trump.

Jones 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 Doe v. Bondi and Moe v. Trump.

Doe v. Bondi

Home » Washington, D.C.

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.

News

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

News

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

News

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

News

Transgender Servicemembers in Talbott Push Back Today Against Another Attempt to Implement Trump’s Military Ban

Lead attorneys for the plaintiffs call the ban an “alarming threat to the trust needed to maximize national security” that would “permanently damage the careers of thousands of individuals who have served honorably and sacrificed for our country”

Jones v. Bondi

Case Overview

Doe v. Bondi

Case Overview

Case Updates

GLAD Law at the Supreme Court

GLAD Law at the Supreme Court: Rally & Community Event

Rally for Transgender Healthcare at the Supreme Court

Pre-Rally Get-Together

RSVP

**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’**