Transgender Military Ban Delayed as Legal Battle Drags On

The Trump administration’s ban on transgender service members was set to kick in Friday.

That is, until a federal judge said, “Hold on!”

Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee (anyone surprised?) asked the Pentagon to hit pause while appeals play out, pushing the start date from March 26 to March 28.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is weighing a separate transgender rights case.

The summary?

The ban’s on deck—but stuck in legal limbo for now.

Transgender military ban will take effect during ongoing court battle. THERE SHOULD BE NO TRANSGENDERS IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY https://t.co/fUOm5oJ9mG

— Jim (@DAYUNITEDSTATES) March 26, 2025

Fox News reports:

The Trump administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military is scheduled to take effect Friday after delays and ongoing court challenges to the controversial Department of Defense (DOD) policy.

D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, presided over a hearing March 21 where she requested the department delay its original March 26 deadline to enact the policy.

Reyes said she wanted to allow more time for the appeals process. She also said she had previously allowed plenty of time to appeal her earlier opinion blocking the ban from going into effect.

“I don’t want to jam up the D.C. Circuit. That’s my main concern here,” Reyes said during the March 21 hearing. “My chambers worked incredibly hard to get out an opinion on time.”

Reyes gave the government a 3 p.m. deadline that same day to return about her request to push the deadline.

The government responded, saying it agreed to delay the March 26 deadline to March 28.

ADVERTISEMENT

The legal challenge comes as the U.S. Supreme Court also considers a high-profile case dealing with transgender rights. The issue in the case, United States vs. Skrmetti, is whether the equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same, prohibits states from allowing medical providers to deliver puberty blockers and hormones to assist with a minor’s transition to another sex.

A decision from the high court, however, is not expected until May or June.

“The Skrmetti decision will occupy a good bit of the field here and provide some guidance. And so I doubt the D.C. Circuit is going to feel the need to rush things,” Charles Stimson, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

“If I was sitting on the D.C. Circuit and I had all these other cases coming my way, and I was on a three-judge panel, I don’t think it’d be the top of my pile.”

The State of Freedom posted on X:

Should judges dictate military policy? Will Chamberlain tackles a recent ruling that struck down a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military—a policy he argues falls squarely under military discretion.

He raises a controversial point: The military excludes individuals for far lesser conditions, such as ADHD. Yet, a judge ruled that a condition requiring hormone therapy and surgeries should not be a disqualifier.

@willchamberlain
questions whether the judiciary should override military readiness concerns based on political ideology rather than practical necessity. He even critiques the judge’s reasoning, which cited the Broadway play Hamilton—an argument he calls “laughably silly.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Should military policy be left to military leaders, or is judicial intervention necessary? Let’s discuss.

Should judges dictate military policy? Will Chamberlain tackles a recent ruling that struck down a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military—a policy he argues falls squarely under military discretion.

He raises a controversial point: The military excludes… pic.twitter.com/vZbLKH3pHp

— The State of Freedom (@freedomstateus) March 26, 2025