The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s emergency bid to reinstate a ban on transgender military service, calling the policy discriminatory, unconstitutional, and unsupported by military evidence.
In a filing submitted Thursday, the two LGBTQ+ legal and advocacy groups responded to the Trump administration’s request for a stay of a nationwide preliminary injunction issued in March that blocks enforcement of Executive Order 14183 and the so-called Hegseth Policy, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces. The order, signed by President Donald Trump in January and implemented by scandal-plagued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, mandates the expulsion of all transgender service members and prohibits future enlistment.
One of the lead plaintiffs, U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling, has served with distinction for nearly two decades. A test pilot and combat aviator, she has flown more than 60 combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and has received multiple commendations, including the Air Medal. Shilling became the first transgender aviator to be medically cleared for tactical jet operations. Her continued service underlines what advocates say is the irrationality of the ban.
“Let’s be clear about an undeniable truth: transgender servicemembers have earned their place in our military through hard work, dedication, sacrifice, and merit,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “As the lower court found, the administration cannot demonstrate that continuing to allow patriotic and selfless transgender troops to serve our country diminishes our military in any way. Instead, any attempt to sideline them through this ban violates their constitutional rights and weakens our military’s readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion.”
The filing represents the most forceful legal challenge yet in the high court to the administration’s renewed effort to purge transgender troops. The groups represent several plaintiffs in Commander Emily Shilling et al. v. United States, all facing imminent separation under the policy.
In their 53-page response brief, attorneys for the groups argue the ban “fails under any level of review,” citing a “shocking proposition that transgender people do not exist.” They note that the Department of Defense, under the Trump order, is required to “root out and separate every transgender service member—within 60 days”—based solely on their gender identity, not their performance or qualifications.
The brief emphasizes that active-duty plaintiffs collectively have more than 115 years of military service and over 70 commendations. “They have sacrificed to serve our country — all the while meeting the same rigorous standards for accession and retention required of every soldier, airman, marine, and sailor,” the filing states.
The organizations say the administration cannot meet the high bar required for a stay pending appeal. “A stay permitting implementation and enforcement … would upend the status quo by allowing the government to immediately begin discharging thousands of transgender servicemembers,” they write.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously denied the government’s motion for a stay on April 18, prompting the Trump administration to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court on April 24.
The current case comes amid mounting legal resistance to the ban. In Talbott v. United States, a D.C. district court issued a similar injunction, finding the ban likely unconstitutional and rooted in animus. A separate case in New Jersey, Ireland v. Hegseth, resulted in a temporary restraining order before the broader injunctions took effect.
In addition to challenging the stay, HRC and Lambda Legal argue that the 2025 ban is materially different from the 2018 “Mattis Policy,” which the Supreme Court allowed to take effect during Trump’s first term. Unlike the earlier policy, the current one provides no exemptions for already-serving transgender troops, mandates blanket discharges, and is “rushed and haphazard,” lacking any evidentiary basis from military leadership, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
“The Ban thus violates the equal protection, due process, and free speech rights of transgender servicemembers and those who wish to serve, as well as basic equitable notions of fairness,” the brief argues.
The court is expected to rule on the emergency stay in the coming days.
Read the full article here
