Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks at an election night watch party, Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
Members of the U.S. military pressed a federal court in New Jersey to maintain pressure on the Trump administration by barring the Pentagon’s transgender ban — despite a federal court in the nation’s capital already banning the controversial policy earlier this week.
On March 17, Logan Ireland and Nicholas Bear Bade, both of whom are on active duty, sued the U.S. Air Force and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the formal policy outlined in various directives which target both existing and would-be transgender service members who have “a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria.”
On March 19, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Joe Biden appointee sitting in Washington, D.C., blocked the government from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive orders purporting to ban transgender people from serving in the military.
Now, in an 18-page reply brief, the Garden State plaintiffs insist they still need the judge overseeing their case to issue the same relief.
Ireland is a distinguished 14-year veteran who hopes to retire as a high-ranking member of the Air Force, according to the lawsuit. Bade is a similarly distinguished six-year veteran who hopes to serve for at least another 14 years. Both of the plaintiffs believe the Trump administration might attempt to kick them out of the Air Force as soon as March 26 — the date the ban was initially slated to take effect.
“The stakes for the Plaintiffs of having separation proceedings initiated against them are grave,” the reply brief reads. “And the likelihood of the resolution of the merits in this case in Plaintiffs’ favor are high. Defendants will suffer no injury in being enjoined from initiating administrative separation proceedings against these two Plaintiffs for the next two weeks while the dust settles, if it does, in a matter of this magnitude that has such serious repercussions for the military careers to which these Plaintiffs have devoted their lives.”
The major issue with the Reyes decision, the plaintiffs say, is that the other court stayed its own order — in anticipation of the government filing a quick appeal with the D.C. Circuit.
“The D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court, or even the District Court, could independently stay all or part of the injunction during appellate review, potentially leaving Plaintiffs unprotected at a moment when they can least afford uncertainty regarding their military careers,” the brief goes on.
More Law&Crime news: ‘Intemperate and disrespectful language’: Federal judge fed-up with tone of Trump admin filings, promises ‘consequences’ for officials who violated deportation order
The strategy employed by the Trump administration in the D.C. case might also eventually limit the scope of the earlier court order.
In the reply brief, Ireland and Bade explain that the government has a particular problem with so-called “facial relief.” In lawsuits, government action can be challenged facially, meaning in general, or as-applied, meaning in a specific circumstance.
For now, the Reyes order applies facially — barring the transgender policy writ large. But it is entirely possible that a reviewing court might limit the extant injunction to only apply to the plaintiffs whose names are actually on the underlying lawsuit. And that, of course, would mean Ireland and Bade would then be subject to the government’s anti-transgender policy.
“Proceedings in [the D.C. case] are ongoing and if the appellate court grants a request by Defendants to narrow the scope of relief, these Plaintiffs — who are not parties in [the D.C. case] — could immediately lose their protection,” the brief goes on. “This potential outcome necessitates individualized protection through this Court’s intervention.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
Ireland and Bade go on to argue that the sheer size of the military — and the concomitant rollout of a massive banning crusade and subsequent court-ordered rescission of the ban — might plausibly result in administrative confusion that could yet ensnare. Better, the plaintiffs say, to have a court order in hand that addresses their specific needs.
And, to that end, the government should have no problem with compliance, the plaintiffs say.
“Defendants will suffer no additional burden by complying with the requested [temporary restraining order] in this case,” the brief reads. “The requested relief would merely require Defendants to ensure compliance with obligations that — by their own admission — already exist under the current [D.C. case] injunction.”
