11/06/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 11/06/2025 11:21
Today, our plaintiffs, in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump) - transgender servicemembers and recruits - filed a brief with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that argued that the US District Court Judge Ana Reyes was correct in issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the ban on transgender military service and asked the court to allow the injunction to take effect.
There is no evidence to support the ban. During oral arguments, the Trump administration even went so far as to concede that the ban is not based on data or evidence. In fact, the Trump administration conceded that each active-duty Plaintiff is "honorable, truthful, and disciplined," currently physically and mentally fit to serve, and has "made America safer." Secretary Hegseth's implementation policy mandates their discharge or prohibits their accession solely because they are transgender. The policy is clearly unconstitutional discrimination targeting servicemembers based on who they are rather than whether they can do the job. U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes described the ban as "soaked with animus and dripping with pretext."
One of the lead attorneys in this case, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi, responded to today's filing:
"Together, the transgender servicemembers in this case have more than 260 years of honorable military service, 120 commendations, and have deployed globally to Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Kuwait, and Poland. They have consistently put their lives on the line for this country and have made us safer. Many of them were born into military families and some have spent nearly their entire lives on base, sacrificing everything for service. Ripping these honorable servicemembers and their families from their jobs and homes and denying them health care for no reason will create irreparable harm to these heroes and their families and betray promises made by our country to our military."
After today's filing, the Trump administration will have the opportunity to file a reply to this brief. Then, oral arguments will be scheduled on a date to be determined on this issue in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.