A group of transgender service members is pushing for an emergency pause on the Trump administration’s military ban through a lawsuit. Filed on January 28, the case is one of the first of its kind, aiming to stop the executive order signed by President Trump on January 27. The order is designed to ensure military readiness by restricting transgender individuals from serving, calling their gender identity “radical gender ideology.” The order rescinds a previous one signed in 2021 by President Biden, which allowed transgender people to serve openly.
The plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Nicolas Talbott, are challenging the ban with a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their legal team filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on February 5, seeking urgent relief from the ban. This injunction would temporarily block the policy from being enforced while the case proceeds.
In the filing, the plaintiffs, which include six transgender service members and two individuals seeking to enlist, argue that the ban would cause irreparable harm. The plaintiffs claim the policy would strip them of their honor, status, and the benefits associated with military service. They also stress that they would lose their livelihoods and face the prospect of being discharged. The plaintiffs further explain that the Trump administration is accelerating its efforts to implement the policy, even before the courts have issued a ruling.
The motion highlights the story of Miriam Perelson, a transgender woman serving in the military who is facing separation from her unit. According to the plaintiffs, the demand for Miriam to serve as a man is inherently discriminatory and goes against her identity as a transgender woman. Perelson was reportedly asked to sign a statement affirming that she would agree not to be transgender, a document she refused to sign, resulting in an ultimatum to be administratively separated from the military.
The plaintiffs argue that urgent relief is necessary to prevent the policy from causing further harm to transgender service members. They emphasize that while they wait for a ruling on the preliminary injunction, many individuals are already being affected by the policy’s rapid enforcement.
The plaintiffs also challenge the constitutionality of the order, citing violations of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. They argue that the order creates a sex-based classification by explicitly targeting transgender individuals, a classification that fails to meet constitutional scrutiny. The plaintiffs assert that the order discriminates against transgender individuals based on their sex and gender identity, which the U.S. Supreme Court has historically found to be impermissible.
Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the policy forces service members to conform to sex stereotypes based on their birth sex. This is a form of sex-based discrimination, which the plaintiffs assert is unconstitutional. They claim that penalizing individuals for being transgender is inherently a violation of their constitutional rights, as it involves discrimination on the basis of sex, a trait protected by the equal protection clause.
A preliminary hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order took place on February 4, with no conclusion reached. The judge has ordered the parties involved to submit a joint status report, and another hearing on the matter is scheduled for February 9. The plaintiffs continue to push for an emergency pause on the policy, arguing that swift action is required to protect their rights and prevent further harm.
