National
Trump administration moves to dissolve final order against trans military ban
DOJ cites stays from Supreme Court allowing implementation


With the U.S. Supreme Court green lighting President Trump this week to proceed with a ban on transgender military service, the U.S. Justice Department moved on Tuesday to dissolve the last court order standing in the administration’s way.
In a one-page notice signed by Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Hunt Joseph Hunt, the Justice Department informs U.S. Judge District George Russell in Maryland of the Trump administration’s intent to a file motion to request a stay on his preliminary injunction preventing Trump from enforcing the anti-trans policy.
Hunt cites the Supreme Court’s decision to issue stays challenging the transgender ban in two other cases before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In both those cases, trial courts issued orders barring the Trump from enforcing the policy as litigation proceeded, but stays from the Supreme Court abrogated those orders.
“The preliminary injunctions stayed in Karnoski and Stockman are indistinguishable from the preliminary injunction in this case, and the Supreme Court’s order is binding precedent on the application of the stay factors to the injunction at issue here,” Hunt writes.
Once the preliminary injunction issued by the Maryland court is lifted, nothing will block the Trump administration its policy. As envisioned in an implementation plan issued by former Defense Secretary James Mattis, the policy would bar new transgender enlistments, but allow openly transgender people currently in the military to remain in the armed forces and receive transition-related care. (Individuals in the military who later decide to come out as transgender and transition, however, will face discharges.)
With the nation’s most superior court directing the Ninth Circuit to dissolve identical orders, it’s hard to see how Russell could keep the last remaining order against the transgender ban in place.
Russell issued the order in the case of Stone v. Trump, a legal challenge against the transgender military ban filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six transgender service members.
In a brief Wednesday responding to the Justice Department, the ACLU points out the Supreme Court merely stayed orders against the ban until the Ninth Circuit renders a decision in those cases, thus a dissolution would be inappropriate.
The ACLU concedes “it would be appropriate for this court to stay the nationwide effect of its injunction pending appeal” in the aftermath of the orders from the Supreme Court, but urges Russell to keep his order in effect for at least the named transgender plaintiffs in the case.
“Defendants’ argument before the Supreme Court centered on the nationwide effects of the Karnoski and Stockman injunctions,” the brief says. “Every page of the Argument section of their Applications focused on Defendants’ concerns regarding a nationwide injunction, and no plaintiffs in those cases urged the Supreme Court to preserve a stay as to specific individual plaintiffs.”
The ACLU also argues “it is in both parties’ interests to expeditiously reach a resolution of the case,” calling to proceed with discovery process in the lawsuit.
“Defendants previously argued that a stay of compliance with this court’s discovery orders would not prejudice plaintiffs while the preliminary injunction remained in place,” the brief says. “This soon may no longer be the case. Now that plaintiffs may lose the protection of the preliminary injunction, plaintiffs respectfully request that implementation of this court’s discovery orders, and its consideration of the pending dispositive motions, proceed expeditiously.”
On Thursday, the Justice Department responded with another brief calling for a stay pending resolution of the request to dissolve the injunction.
“Because the Supreme Court’s order granted defendants’ stay request in full and stayed the Karnoski and Stockman injunctions in their entirety, a similar stay of this court’s preliminary injunction, in its entirety, is required here,” the brief says.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
-
Out & About3 days ago
Celebrate the Fourth of July the gay way!
-
Virginia3 days ago
Va. court allows conversion therapy despite law banning it
-
Federal Government5 days ago
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House