A federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely blocked implementation of President Trump\u2019s executive order effectively barring transgender people from serving openly in the military, a stark blow to the administration\u2019s efforts to curb transgender rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of former President Biden,<\/u><\/a> barred Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth\u2002<\/u><\/a>and other military officials from implementing Trump\u2019s order or otherwise putting new policy into place effectuating it. She also said the plaintiffs\u2019 military statuses must remain unchanged until further order of the court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The judge said her order intends to \u201cmaintain the status quo\u201d of military policy regarding transgender service that existed before Trump signed the order titled \u201cPrioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.\u201d She stayed her order until Friday to give the administration time to appeal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Court knows that this opinion will lead to heated public debate and appeals,\u201d Reyes wrote in her opinion. \u201cIn a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Six active service members and two individuals seeking to enlist in the military sued the Trump administration<\/u><\/a> soon after the Jan. 27 order was signed, asserting it violates their constitutional rights. Two similar lawsuits are moving through the courts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s order suggests that transgender people cannot<\/u><\/a> \u201csatisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service\u201d because they threaten the lethality of the armed forces and undermine unit cohesion, an argument long used to keep marginalized communities from serving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA man\u2019s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,\u201d the executive order states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Reyes wrote in her opinion that the president has both the power and obligation to ensure military readiness but noted that leaders of the armed forces have long used that justification to \u201cdeny marginalized persons the privilege of serving.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c\u2018[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,\u2019\u201d Reyes wrote. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFirst minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank,\u201d she continued. \u201cToday, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n A 2016 RAND Corp. study<\/u><\/a> commissioned by the Pentagon found that allowing trans individuals to serve in the military had no negative impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness. <\/p>\n\n\n\n During several hearings across multiple weeks, Reyes tore into Justice Department lawyers over Trump\u2019s order and Hegseth\u2019s policy effectuating it<\/u><\/a>, which was set to go into effect on March 26. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A Department of Defense memo dated Feb. 26 said individuals with a \u201ccurrent diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria\u201d are not fit for military service. It added that the Pentagon recognizes only two sexes, male and female, in compliance with another Trump executive order, and requires service members to \u201conly serve in accordance with their sex.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Reyes noted that symptoms of gender dysphoria could \u201cmean anything,\u201d from \u201ccross-dressing\u201d to mental health conditions like depression, which are also common among members of the military who do not identify as transgender. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow can I say that a policy is limited, when on its own terms, it could include almost any transgender person?\u201d the judge asked Justice Department lawyers during a March 13 hearing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer Jason Manion argued that judges must accede to the \u201ccurrent\u201d military, not those under the leadership of past administrations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou defer to the military,\u201d he said. \u201cYou do not reassess the evidence they are doing.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nonetheless, the judge questioned the Defense Department\u2019s use of \u201ccherry-picked\u201d studies to back up its new policy, which she said were \u201ctotally, grossly\u201d misrepresented by Hegseth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In her ruling Tuesday, Reyes pointed to that lack of evidence as reason to take a different course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYes, the Court must defer,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cBut not blindly.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n At an earlier hearing last month before Hegseth\u2019s policy was announced, Reyes sparred with<\/u><\/a> DOJ lawyer Jason Lynch over the breadth of Trump\u2019s order, suggesting it amounted to \u201cunadulterated animus\u201d backed up by little evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n She directed Lynch to sit down and purported she would ban all graduates of the University of Virginia School of Law \u2014 his alma mater \u2014 from appearing before her because they\u2019re \u201cliars\u201d and \u201clack integrity,\u201d terms mimicking Trump\u2019s executive order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIs that animus?\u201d she asked, calling Lynch back to the podium. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Following that hearing, the Justice Department filed a complaint<\/u><\/a> against Reyes accusing her of misconduct. Attorney General Pam Bondi\u2019s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, claimed the judge sought to \u201cembarrass\u201d Lynch with her hypothetical scenario. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another seven transgender service members, backed by two LGBTQ civil rights organizations, are challenging Trump\u2019s order on transgender troops in a separate lawsuit<\/u><\/a> filed earlier this month in Washington state. Two more active-duty members challenged the order<\/u><\/a> in a suit filed Monday in New Jersey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a statement, Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs at the center of Reyes\u2019s ruling, said Tuesday\u2019s decision \u201cspeaks volumes.\u201d
\u201cThe Court\u2019s unambiguous factual findings lay bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation. Given the Court\u2019s clear-eyed assessment, we are confident this ruling will stand strong on appeal,\u201d Levi said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n