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 9th 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.”

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 with pro bono legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Kropf Moseley PLCC.

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.