Members of the U.S. military have urged a federal court in New Jersey to block the Pentagon’s transgender ban, despite a previous ruling in Washington, D.C., that prohibited the policy. This latest effort, led by active-duty service members Logan Ireland and Nicholas Bear Bade, comes after a federal court decision on March 19 temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.
On March 17, Ireland and Bade, both veterans with distinguished military careers, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The case challenges various directives targeting transgender service members with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria, which have been central to the Trump administration’s transgender military ban. Ireland, a 14-year veteran, and Bade, a six-year veteran, are particularly concerned that the policy could lead to their separation from the Air Force, potentially as early as March 26, the initial date for the ban’s implementation.
In an 18-page brief filed in response, the plaintiffs emphasize the urgency of the situation and argue that the court should maintain pressure on the Trump administration to block the policy. They point out that while the D.C. court’s injunction prohibits the ban on a national scale, it does not extend comprehensive protection to all service members, particularly those not directly named in the case. Therefore, they assert, their situation remains precarious, as the D.C. court order could be temporarily stayed or narrowed by an appeals court, leaving them vulnerable.
The plaintiffs argue that the risks to their military careers are significant, with the potential for administrative separation proceedings to be initiated against them soon. They stress that such proceedings would have long-lasting consequences, and the need for immediate, individualized protection through the New Jersey court is crucial. In their brief, they highlight the possibility that a reviewing court could limit the scope of the D.C. decision, potentially rendering it ineffective for individuals like them who are not part of the lawsuit in Washington, D.C. The plaintiffs contend that the uncertainty caused by this potential narrowing of relief could have disastrous consequences for their careers.
Ireland and Bade also argue that the administration’s efforts to roll out the ban, followed by subsequent court orders reversing the policy, could lead to significant administrative confusion, which might ensnare them despite the legal protections in place. Given the sheer scale of the military and the complexity of enforcing such a wide-reaching policy, they believe that a targeted, court-ordered injunction would provide clearer, more effective protection against the potential harm they face.
The plaintiffs stress that the government should not oppose the requested temporary restraining order, as it would merely require the Pentagon to comply with the obligations outlined in the D.C. case. The D.C. ruling, they argue, already prohibits the enforcement of the transgender ban, and no additional burden would be placed on the government by extending this protection to the plaintiffs.
In conclusion, Ireland and Bade’s lawsuit underscores the ongoing legal battle over the transgender military ban and the critical need for continued judicial intervention to safeguard the rights and careers of transgender service members. The case in New Jersey could provide additional legal clarity and protection for individuals who remain vulnerable to the uncertainty created by the shifting legal landscape surrounding the ban. As the situation unfolds, the military, the courts, and the plaintiffs themselves will continue to navigate the complexities of the legal challenges to the policy.
