A Different Judge Halts Trump's Attempt to Prohibit Transgender Individuals from Serving in the Military
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle stated that there is no evidence indicating that transgender troops undermine military readiness.
TroibNews 
A second federal judge has prevented Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from implementing a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle declared the ban, instated by President Donald Trump, to be overtly discriminatory, based on outdated data, and neglectful of more current evidence regarding transgender service members.
“The government has … provided no evidence supporting the conclusion that military readiness, unit cohesion, lethality, or any of the other touchstone phrases long used to exclude various groups from service have in fact been adversely impacted by open transgender service,” Settle, an appointee of President George W. Bush based in Seattle, wrote in a 65-page opinion. “The Court can only find that there is none.”
Settle determined that the Trump administration selectively used and misrepresented outdated data to validate the policy. His assessment mirrored a similar ruling earlier this month from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of President Joe Biden in Washington.
Settle remarked that the decision was “not an especially close question” given that there was no evidence from the Trump administration showing any negative effects resulting from the service of transgender troops.
“Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center,” Settle wrote. “But there is none.”
This ruling represents another challenge to Trump's extensive campaign against transgender individuals, initiated through executive orders at the start of his administration. Federal courts have now restricted Trump's attempts to eliminate funding for hospitals treating transgender youth, dismantle government resources for medical professionals working with transgender patients, and limit the military service of transgender individuals, characterizing these policies as fundamentally discriminatory and based on insufficient data.
In the legal battles against the ban on transgender troops, the administration has contended that military leaders should receive almost unconditional deference in decisions related to fitness for service. Both Settle and Reyes acknowledged this point; however, they asserted that even such significant deference was overstepped by the transgender ban.
An appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is imminent. Earlier on the same day, the Trump administration appealed Reyes’ ruling to the D.C. Circuit, which advised the Pentagon against taking any measures to remove transgender service members while the appeal is pending.
Settle, like Reyes, reviewed the evolution of military policies regarding transgender service since 2015, when the Obama administration first allowed them to serve openly. Trump’s attempts to overturn that policy during his initial term resulted in legal challenges, ultimately leading then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to decide against excluding or withdrawing medical care from transgender troops already serving when Trump took office.
Under Biden's leadership, the Pentagon restructured restrictions once again. Settle pointed out that these adjustments have resulted in nearly 2,000 openly serving transgender military members, a minor component of the overall force—with no evidence indicating that their presence has negatively impacted military strength or readiness. He noted that the evidence presented in court actually supported the contrary.
He highlighted Commander Emily Shilling, the lead plaintiff in the case, who has served as a naval aviator for 19 years, completed 60 combat missions, and received numerous accolades.
“There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit’s cohesion, or to the military’s lethality or readiness, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service,” Settle wrote. “Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender."
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle declared the ban, instated by President Donald Trump, to be overtly discriminatory, based on outdated data, and neglectful of more current evidence regarding transgender service members.
“The government has … provided no evidence supporting the conclusion that military readiness, unit cohesion, lethality, or any of the other touchstone phrases long used to exclude various groups from service have in fact been adversely impacted by open transgender service,” Settle, an appointee of President George W. Bush based in Seattle, wrote in a 65-page opinion. “The Court can only find that there is none.”
Settle determined that the Trump administration selectively used and misrepresented outdated data to validate the policy. His assessment mirrored a similar ruling earlier this month from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, an appointee of President Joe Biden in Washington.
Settle remarked that the decision was “not an especially close question” given that there was no evidence from the Trump administration showing any negative effects resulting from the service of transgender troops.
“Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center,” Settle wrote. “But there is none.”
This ruling represents another challenge to Trump's extensive campaign against transgender individuals, initiated through executive orders at the start of his administration. Federal courts have now restricted Trump's attempts to eliminate funding for hospitals treating transgender youth, dismantle government resources for medical professionals working with transgender patients, and limit the military service of transgender individuals, characterizing these policies as fundamentally discriminatory and based on insufficient data.
In the legal battles against the ban on transgender troops, the administration has contended that military leaders should receive almost unconditional deference in decisions related to fitness for service. Both Settle and Reyes acknowledged this point; however, they asserted that even such significant deference was overstepped by the transgender ban.
An appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California is imminent. Earlier on the same day, the Trump administration appealed Reyes’ ruling to the D.C. Circuit, which advised the Pentagon against taking any measures to remove transgender service members while the appeal is pending.
Settle, like Reyes, reviewed the evolution of military policies regarding transgender service since 2015, when the Obama administration first allowed them to serve openly. Trump’s attempts to overturn that policy during his initial term resulted in legal challenges, ultimately leading then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to decide against excluding or withdrawing medical care from transgender troops already serving when Trump took office.
Under Biden's leadership, the Pentagon restructured restrictions once again. Settle pointed out that these adjustments have resulted in nearly 2,000 openly serving transgender military members, a minor component of the overall force—with no evidence indicating that their presence has negatively impacted military strength or readiness. He noted that the evidence presented in court actually supported the contrary.
He highlighted Commander Emily Shilling, the lead plaintiff in the case, who has served as a naval aviator for 19 years, completed 60 combat missions, and received numerous accolades.
“There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit’s cohesion, or to the military’s lethality or readiness, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service,” Settle wrote. “Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender."
Jessica Kline for TROIB News
