Efforts by the Trump administration to reinstate its ban on transgender military service faced a setback as a federal appeals court in California denied the request for an emergency stay. This ruling marks another legal defeat for the administration’s broader initiative to exclude transgender individuals from military service.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, comprising a three-judge panel, refused to stay a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle of Washington state. This ruling prevents enforcement of Executive Order 14183, which prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the military, while the case continues. Judge Settle’s injunction issued on March 28 in the case of Shilling v. Trump remains effective.
The legal challenge was brought forth in February by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal, representing seven active-duty transgender service members, a transgender individual seeking to enlist, and the Gender Justice League based in Seattle. They argue that the ban violates constitutional rights and is discriminatory without factual basis.
Following the appeals court’s decision, the legal teams expressed relief, noting that allowing transgender servicemembers who meet military standards to serve does not harm the government. They contended that discriminatory policies, instead, harm the military by excluding qualified individuals.
The Ninth Circuit panel, including Judges A. Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali Desai, concluded that the government did not demonstrate potential irreparable harm if the injunction remained. Settle’s order is extensive, preventing the removal of transgender troops or denial of enlistment based on gender identity, and applies nationwide, safeguarding both plaintiffs and service members in similar circumstances, including those abroad.
Judge Settle dismissed the government’s assertion that military judgment justified the ban, pointing out the lack of evidence showing any harm caused by transgender service over the past four years to the military’s critical objectives.
The Ninth Circuit has maintained the existing briefing schedule and plans to schedule oral arguments after the government submits its reply brief. Concurrently, a parallel case, Talbott v. Trump, is set for hearings on Tuesday by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This case, managed by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, similarly challenges the constitutionality of the ban. It arises from a separate injunction by D.C. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who criticized the policy as being motivated by animus and lacking genuine rationale.
Both cases currently preserve the Biden-era protections for transgender service members, at least temporarily.