A federal court is hearing arguments about President Trump’s second attempt to restrict transgender people serving in the military. The preliminary injunction hearing in Washington is being covered by Lawdork’s Chris Geidner. Transcripts show the judge is fact checking and asking for evidence from Trump Justice Department lawyers to back up a need for a ban.
The hearing is about one of two legal challenges to Trump’s order, Talbott v Trump. The National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law filed on behalf of six active duty transgender military personnel and two trans Americans seeking to enlist.
Judge Ana Reyes fact checked the Trump orders’ false claims about there only being “two sexes”:
“This executive order is premised on an assertion that’s not biologically correct,” Reyes said.
“There are anywhere near 30 intersex examples. Anyone who doesn’t have XX or XY chromosomes is not just male or female, they’re intersex.”
“If I’m intersex, where am I allowed to go?”
None of Trump’s executive orders about transgender people and “two sexes” mentions the reality of intersex people. Some people are born intersex, with variations in sex traits that might not fit typical conceptions of male or female. Intersex people are usually assigned male or female at birth.
“I’m telling you that there are people who are neither male or female,” Judge Reyes said. “The premise of the executive order is just incorrect.”
Trump’s lawyers are absolutely flailing in the courts right now
— Ari Drennen (@aridrennen.bsky.social) February 18, 2025 at 5:26 PM
On the order’s claim about pronouns and military readiness:
“Can we agree that the greatest fighting force… is not going to be impacted in any way by less than one percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them?” Judge Reyes asked.
“It’s frankly ridiculous.”
“Would you agree with me that if our military is negatively impacted in any kind of way that matters… we all have a lot bigger problems than pronoun use? We have a military that is incompetent. Any common-sense, rational human being knows that it doesn’t.”
DOJ refuses to say whether pronoun usage harms military preparedness, and Reyes is not happy about it.
“It is frankly ridiculous” to claim that. “You have 10 days to find me a person,” she says, a commissioned officer, who says so, and they will have to get on the stand to discuss their position.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 18, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Reyes challenged Trump administration lawyers:
“If you want to get me an officer of the U.S. military who is willing to get on the stand and say that because of pronoun usage, the U.S. military is less prepared… I will be the first to buy you a box of cigars.”
Judge Reyes tried to get the DOJ lawyer to answer questions about the order’s motive, noting the harsh and unproven language:
“[The order] calls an entire category of people dishonest, dishonorable, undisciplined, immodest, who lack integrity—people who have taken an oath to defend this country, people who have been under fire, people who have received medals for taking fire for this country. I want to know from the government whether that language expresses ‘animus.’ Does that express animus?”
“This is a policy from the President of the United States affecting thousands of people… to call an entire group of people, lying dishonest people who are undisciplined, immodest, and have no integrity. How is that anything other than showing animus?”
DOJ’s lawyer, Jason Lynch, did not provide a yes or no answer.
Reyes: “We are dealing with unadulterated animus.”
Reyes asks whether saying an entire group of people are dishonest, undisciplined, and lack integrity — “people who have been under fire” — “expresses animus.”
DOJ’s Lynch will not provide a yes or no answer.
Reyes responds: “We are dealing with unadulterated animus.”
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 18, 2025 at 11:18 AM
Judge Reyes described how this would work if she applied similar sweeping language to the DOJ’s Lynch, a graduate of University of Virginia law school, changing courtroom orders “to bar people from UVA law school from appearing in her court because ‘they’re all liars and lack integrity and are undisciplined and can’t possibly meet the high rigors of being a lawyer for the government.’” Reyes asked Lynch to then sit down. Then called him back up to ask whether that was a display of animus.
Judge Reyes asked for evidence to back up statements in the executive order. DOJ says there is no specific evidence at this time.
On Wednesday, February 19th, in the second day of the hearing, GLAD Law and NCLR made the case that even before the discriminatory order is written into military policy, there is harm to trans service members serving today.
“There is concrete harm” from the EO itself affecting “their ability to do their jobs,” GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi noted.
The Trump administration’s orders conflict with “decades of case law” and violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, NCLR’s Shannon Minter stated.
Judge Reyes noted a pattern of animus coming from the Trump administration toward transgender Americans, reading a list of actions against transgender people in its first month.
“You cannot tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against,” Reyes said, noting how last week, censors removed the word “transgender” from the Stonewall National Monument website run by the National Park Service, erasing the contributions of transgender people, and as a result, attempting to distort the accurate history of the LGBTQ movement.
“We are literally erasing their contributions to modern society. … It screams animus.”
Reyes goes off.
“You cannot tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against.” Of the Stonewall website deletion, Reyes says, “We are literally erasing their contributions to modern society. … It screams animus.”
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 19, 2025 at 8:38 AM
A decision on the preliminary injunction is not expected before next week, when the Secretary of Defense is to release its new policy directives about transgender people serving in the military.