Blog

We Will Never Back Down

Yesterday, we were back at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for a hearing in Talbott v. USA, our challenge to the Hegseth policy banning transgender people from military service. The administration is appealing the preliminary injunction we secured last March preventing implementation of the ban.

The military ban is emblematic of the upheaval and uncertainty LGBTQ+ people have endured – particularly transgender people – since the second Trump administration began one year ago. Like the entire onslaught of federal anti-LGBTQ policies over the past year, the ban on transgender servicemembers is needless, cruel for cruelty’s sake, and driven by deep hostility toward vulnerable groups, and toward anyone who challenges this administration’s rigid, anti-diversity, anti-democratic agenda.

As US District Judge Ana Reyes wrote in granting our request for the preliminary injunction in March 2025, “The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext. Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.” 

GLAD Law anticipated the military ban and immediately filed suit when the president issued it just one week into his new administration. We represent 30 courageous active and prospective servicemembers across all branches of the military. They bring decades of decorated experience, training, education, and commitment to serving this country. Among them are US Space Force Master Sergeant Sabrina Bruce, who has served for 13 years and was one of the first enlisted servicemembers to join the Space Force, and US Army Major Erica Vandal, a West Point grad who served in Afghanistan and was awarded a Bronze Star. 

“Never in my career has anyone said I wasn’t capable or meeting the standards [required for military service],” says Major Vandal. “I love this country. I absolutely am willing to sacrifice my life for that.” 

Video: Nic Talbott shares thoughts on the hearing

The injunction at issue in Talbott is critically different than a similar injunction blocked by the Supreme Court last May in a “shadow docket” order issued without any reasoning behind it. Here, the District Court judge addressed at length the critical question of whether the military ban is based on animus toward transgender people. At the oral argument yesterday, the judges’ questions suggested they were carefully considering the ban’s demeaning language, rushed and cruel rollout, and flimsy justifications, as well as our plaintiffs’ exemplary service records. Shannon Minter of NCLR, who is co-counseling this case with GLAD Law, argued powerfully that every aspect of the ban should lead the court to the inescapable conclusion that the ban’s purpose is to harm transgender people and, therefore, violates the Constitution. 

We refuse to let the betrayal of these brave and skilled American servicemembers be the end of the story. We take inspiration from our plaintiffs’ courage and commitment in this fight for fairness, despite attacks from their own government. That’s why we continue to go to court, month after month, to fight for transgender servicemembers; for dignity for all LGBTQ+ people; for justice; and for due process of law.  

Stay tuned. Learn all about Talbott v USA and find case documents. 

Video: Shannon Minter shares potential impact of the case