This week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump) upholding a preliminary injunction halting the discharge of transgender servicemembers. The preliminary injunction was issued by District Court Judge Ana Reyes on March 18, 2025. 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.”
However, Judge Reyes’ order was temporarily stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit pending the outcome of [Monday’s] decision on the merits. As the result of [Monday’s] decision, the preliminary injunction will take effect – blocking the government from discharging the transgender servicemember plaintiffs in Talbott.
National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi responded to [Monday’s] win for transgender troops:
“This is a dramatic shift in the status quo. Before [Monday], the Trump administration was actively taking steps to discharge these courageous plaintiffs. [Monday’s] decision stops this administration from doing so,” said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Servicemembers were preparing to be hauled before review boards and discharged – despite years of honorable service. The court [Monday] affirmed the District Court’s careful findings that this administration’s ban on transgender military service has no legitimate basis.”
“[Monday’s] decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “This decisive ruling confirms that the Trump administration has no legitimate basis to discharge transgender servicemembers who have met every demanding standard and proven, time and again, their fitness and dedication to serve.”
[Monday’s] ruling affirms the District Court’s finding, concluding that: “this is not a case where we are left to speculate why the government drafted such broad undifferentiated classifications . . . we have direct evidence in this case that animus motivated the classifications in the Hegseth Policy.”
— from a GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) press release.