# Talbott v. United States The main D.C. challenge to the second Trump administration's ban on transgender military service. It was filed by transgender servicemembers and would-be recruits, represented by the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law, and was originally captioned *Talbott v. Trump*. The case is before Judge [[Ana Reyes]] in the D.C. district court. As of October 2026 it has three live fronts: a preliminary injunction protecting serving plaintiffs, a certified class, and a government petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case. ## The policy A January 2025 executive order directed [[Pete Hegseth]] to implement a ban on "individuals with gender dysphoria." The Defense Department policy issued on 26 February 2025 generally disqualifies anyone who has gender dysphoria or has undergone medical treatment for it. Hegseth's directive stated that "expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards" for service. Separation boards then began discharging transgender troops across the services. ## Procedural history | Date | Court | Event | |---|---|---| | 18 Mar 2025 | D.D.C. (Reyes) | **Preliminary injunction.** Reyes finds the ban "soaked in animus" and its language "unabashedly demeaning." The order covers six serving plaintiffs and two who sought to enlist. | | Mar 2025 | D.C. Circuit | Administrative stay of the injunction while the appeal is considered. | | May 2025 | Supreme Court | In a separate case, *Shilling* (W.D. Wash.), the Court stays a nationwide injunction 6–3, letting the ban take effect across the military (see [[Shadow Docket]]). | | 9 Dec 2025 | D.C. Circuit (motions panel) | **Stay pending appeal**, 2–1. Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, finds Reyes gave the Secretary "insufficient deference" and that, under [[United States v. Skrmetti]], the policy "classifies on the basis of medical use" and triggers no heightened scrutiny. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissents: "The outcome was determined by animus from the start." | | 22 Jan 2026 | D.C. Circuit (merits panel) | Oral argument. | | 1 Jun 2026 | D.C. Circuit (merits panel) | **Injunction largely upheld.** Judge Robert Wilkins writes that the policy "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group." Wilkins and Senior Judge Judith Rogers uphold the injunction for the **serving** plaintiffs. Wilkins and Judge Justin Walker vacate it for the two would-be **enlistees**. Citing [[Trump v. CASA]], relief is limited to the named plaintiffs. Walker dissents: "We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks." | | 30 Jun 2026 | D.D.C. (Reyes) | **Class certified**, covering servicemembers and prospective troops affected by the ban. Reyes refused a class of everyone who merely "wishes" to join and pressed for ties to the policy's terms. Trial is set for **January 2027**. | | 27 Aug 2026 | Supreme Court | Solicitor General [[D. John Sauer]] petitions for certiorari (No. 26-272). He calls the D.C. Circuit decision "gravely erroneous" and an "unprecedented intervention into military affairs," and argues that rational-basis review applies because the policy classifies by medical condition. | | 25 Sep 2026 | Supreme Court | Plaintiffs' response deadline extended to **2 November 2026**. | | 1 Oct 2026 | Supreme Court | Amicus briefs supporting the government from West Virginia and 21 other states, and from Lt. Gen. [[Michael Flynn]] (ret.) and others. | ## What the case turns on **Animus versus deference.** Every judge who has looked at the record has divided on one question. Is this a medical-fitness rule owed military deference, or a status-based exclusion whose stated reasons are a pretext? Reyes, Pillard and Wilkins found animus on the face of the record. Katsas, Rao and Walker found the courts lacked the competence or the authority to second-guess it. **[[United States v. Skrmetti]] as the hinge.** The government's whole equal-protection argument is that *Skrmetti*, the 2025 decision upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, makes a classification by diagnosis or treatment a medical classification, not a sex or transgender-status one. That would put it under rational-basis review. If the Supreme Court takes *Talbott*, it will be deciding whether *Skrmetti*'s logic reaches adults in federal employment. **[[Trump v. CASA]] as the limit.** Even the panel that agreed with Reyes held it could protect only the named plaintiffs. That is why the class certification matters: it is the post-*CASA* route to relief for everyone else. ## See Also - [[Ana Reyes]], the presiding district judge - [[Pete Hegseth]], the defendant implementing the ban - [[Don't Ask Don't Tell]], the precedent policy - [[United States v. Skrmetti]] · [[Trump v. CASA]] · [[Shadow Docket]] - [[Legal Cases Hub]]