Twenty States, Led by NJ, Oppose Trump’s Transgender Military Ban in Court

NEW JERSEY – New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, joined by 19 other state attorneys general, filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging President Trump’s executive order that bars transgender people from serving in the U.S. military. The coalition contends that the ban not only violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, but also undercuts military readiness, disadvantages state National Guard units, and runs afoul of statewide policies protecting transgender individuals from discrimination.

The amicus brief supports a group of plaintiffs—current and prospective transgender service members—who brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs have asked the court to impose a preliminary injunction, preventing the Trump Administration from implementing the ban while litigation proceeds. A hearing on the preliminary injunction request is scheduled for February 18, 2025.

“Unlike those who devised this ban, the people serving in our armed forces have always put the interests of their country above themselves,” said Attorney General Platkin. “Trump’s ban on transgender service members isn’t just discriminatory, it violates our Constitution and makes our country and our state less safe. Transgender people have honorably served our country for many years—and this ban is nothing more than making a political statement at the cost of damaging our military and disrespecting our troops. We look forward to helping to overturn this irrational and hateful ban.”

Key Arguments

1. Constitutionality: The states argue that the order blatantly violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees by singling out a protected group based solely on gender identity.
2. Military Impact: The proposed ban would discharge capable transgender service members and block new recruits, depriving the military—during historically low recruitment—of valuable talent.
3. National Guard and State Emergencies: Transgender National Guard members crucial to state emergency responses would be forced out, harming public safety and disaster readiness.
4. Established Research: Twice, the military has thoroughly studied the inclusion of transgender members and concluded it benefited unit cohesion and overall effectiveness, refuting claims that the policy shift would impose undue costs or readiness problems.

A 2014 study cited in the brief found that 150,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and Guard or Reserve members identify as transgender—meaning transgender people are, in fact, twice as likely to serve than their cisgender counterparts. With the reintroduction of the ban, service members could be discharged or turned away simply because they are transgender. After previous bans were lifted, transgender personnel openly served without detrimental impact to unit cohesion or readiness, according to multiple Defense Department reviews.

The lawsuit is driven by Attorney General Platkin’s office and joined by California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. All participating states share robust commitments to safeguarding transgender rights in schools, workplaces, and public accommodations.

The coalition seeks an immediate court order blocking the ban while the case unfolds, arguing that reinstating such a policy would irreparably harm thousands of transgender service members—and, by extension, the broader defense of the country.

For updates, subscribe to our free newsletter!

Support your local news!