FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2025
Contacts:
Amanda Johnston, ajohnston@glad.org, 617-417-7769
Malkia Hutchinson, mhutchinson@nclrights.org, 202-734-3548
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, NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter and GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi, shared their reactions to today’s opposition to the government’s motion for an emergency stay:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
###
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding, NCLR has maintained a longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and the LGBTQ community’s most vulnerable. www.nclrights.org
GLAD Law (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders) has been a leading force in LGBTQ+ rights for nearly 50 years. With deep roots in New England and impact nationwide, we use strategic litigation, legislation, and public education to fight discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and HIV status. GLAD Law’s bold strategy and precedent-setting victories have reshaped the legal landscape, advancing equality for all people facing discrimination and social barriers. www.glad.org
