Current and future transgender military service members have claimed a new victory after a court granted a motion for class certification as part of a legal battle that began in January 2025.
The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday afternoon granted a motion for class certification in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump), the ongoing legal challenge to the transgender military ban pushed by President Donald Trump and executed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The ruling for class certification allows plaintiffs to seek to extend protections won in Talbott v. Trump to all transgender service members currently serving, in addition to ensuring that future rulings against the transgender military ban will apply to all members of the class.
The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law represent the plaintiffs, filing a motion on April 15, 2026, seeking to certify a class of all transgender individuals who are or were in active-duty service or pursuing accession in the military on or after January 28, 2025, the date Talbott v. USA was initially filed. This latest ruling follows a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit made June 1 of this year, upholding a district court’s preliminary injunction and halting the discharge of the Talbott service member plaintiffs.
“The protection afforded to our plaintiffs should be available to all transgender service members and their families,” National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director Shannon Minter said in a statement. “We know that this ban is discriminatory, rooted in animus, and irrationally excludes highly decorated service members who have deployed around the world and given everything to our country.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights, said the ruling translates to aspiring transgender recruits being held to the same high standards that transgender members serve now and in the past—such as the same training, fitness requirements and sacrifice.
“Setting military policy based on bias and prejudice is destabilizing for the military and our country,” Levi said in a statement. “And as the district court found, and the court of appeals affirmed, the government has no legitimate basis for forcing them out for reasons unrelated to their ability to serve.”
Talbott v. Trump, which along with NCLR and Glad Law was brought by legal counsel from Wardenski P.C. and Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein, was the first legal challenge filed against Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order.
Minter and Levi, the lead attorneys, are both transgender and each have more than three decades’ experience litigating landmark LGBTQ cases—including a legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which resulted in a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.
Today’s ruling came on the same day as the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision ruling that transgender women and girls can legally be excluded from women’s and girls’ athletic teams. The conservative majority upheld state bans in Idaho and West Virginia.
Class-Action Lawsuit ‘Made Sense’
Michael Haley, a staff attorney for GLAD Law, told Military.com Tuesday morning in anticipation of the hearing that the purpose of the lawsuit “made sense” to have a class where some members of that class—transgender service members, in this instance—brough a lawsuit on behalf of everybody rather than individually.
Since the certification was granted, it means going forward that any legal victories will not just be applied to the 20 or 30 plaintiffs but all transgender service members.
“This will make a big difference in the lives of a lot of people,” Haley said.
The etymology of this ongoing legal battle, according to Haley, is essentially a rebuttal of arguments made by Trump and Hegseth. That includes disagreements between those officials and the plaintiffs as it pertains to issues of readiness, good moral standing, and the ability to do a job well.
The federal government’s lack of providing a sufficient legal reason to exclude transgender troops is an affront to the Constitution, according to Haley, with established laws like the Equal Protection Clause setting precedent.
“Our plaintiffs and transgender service members have been serving in the military for years, and in some cases, decades,” he said. “What they’re looking for is really to be treated the same as everybody else. The military is a meritocratic organization where the idea is, if you meet the standards—the bigger standards—then get to continue to serve.
“We have people here who have met those rigorous standards and want to continue to be able to serve. And rather than continuing to serve in the jobs that they have been performing in, and in many cases performing exemplary service, the Trump administration is forcing them out not because they can’t do the job…but because the Trump administration does not like transgender people, and that is exactly what the appeals court held at the beginning of this month.”
It also remains unclear exactly how many active-duty and reserve transgender military members exist. Haley said that lack of knowing is yet another reason to legally challenge sweeping changes pointed in one group’s direction.
But Haley warns proponents who want transgender members to serve now and in the future that the issue has legally ebbed and flowed. This ruling is likely to meet more resistance in coming weeks or months.
“There will be more process in court,” he said. “I don’t want anybody to necessarily be under the impression that a win today means that things on the ground change immediately.
“We’ll have to look at the order, see what the order says, and what it means is that going forward. Any wins in this court will apply broadly.”
Read the full article here