A federal judge in D.C. on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender service members, which was scheduled to take effect on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued the preliminary injunction, saying the policy violates the Constitution. 

“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.

The legal challenge to Trump’s trans military ban executive, Talbott v. Trump, was brought by LGBTQ groups GLAD Law and National Center for Lesbian Rights. 

Reyes found that the ban violates equal protection because it discriminates based on trans status and sex and because “it is soaked in animus,” noting that its language is “unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”

The lead attorneys in the case are GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.

“Today’s decisive ruling speaks volumes,” said Levi. “The court’s unambiguous factual findings lay bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation. Given the court’s clear-eyed assessment, we are confident this ruling will stand strong on appeal.”

Nicolas Talbott, a second lieutenant in the Army Reserves, and Erica Vandal, a major in the U.S. Army, are two of the 14 plaintiffs in the case. They spoke during a virtual press conference with Levi and Minter on Wednesday.

“Yesterday’s ruling is just such a tremendous step forward for transgender service members,” said Talbott.

Vandal added the ruling “clearly recognizes that transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have been serving openly as our authentic selves for nearly a decade in every capacity, at every echelon, in every theater and combat zone across the world, all while meeting and exceeding the same standards as every one else without causing any degradation or unit cohesion.” 

Levi said Reyes’s ruling requires “the military to return to business as usual.”

The decision is stayed until 10 a.m. on Thursday. It is not immediately clear whether the Trump-Vance administration will challenge it.

“What the order does is stave off, put off any effect of the ban actually being implemented against any individuals,” said Levi.

Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.

Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.

“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district court’s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.”

“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks it’s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.

“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ‘mutilation’ and ‘an abomination’ and have called the providers of this care ‘evil,’” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.” 

“Transgender adults don’t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth don’t need the government dictating how to raise their children,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “The district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.” 

Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, “The state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”

Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, “The defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.

 “Not only does this dangerous law take away parents’ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a lower court’s decision that blocked enforcement of an Arizona law banning transgender girls from playing on public schools’ sports team that correspond with their gender identity.

Then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, in 2022 signed the law.

The Associated Press reported the parents of two trans girls challenged the law in a lawsuit they filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson, Ariz., in April 2023. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Zipps on July 20, 2023, blocked the law.

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, who was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the law.

A three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit unanimously upheld Zipps’s ruling.

“We are pleased with the 9th Circuit’s ruling today, which held that the Arizona law likely violates the Equal Protection Clause and recognizes that a student’s transgender status is not an accurate proxy for athletic ability and competitive advantage,” said Rachel Berg, a staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in a press release.

NCLR represents the two plaintiffs in the case.