Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Ban on ‘Transgender’ Service Members

A federal district judge has blocked the Pentagon from implementing its policy excluding “transgender” troops from serving in the U.S. military.

In a February 26, 2025 directive, the Pentagon said, “The medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”

“The Department only recognizes two sexes: male and female,” the directive states. “An individual’s sex is immutable, unchanging during a person’s life.”

The directive stipulates that:

Individuals with a current diagnosis, or exhibiting symptoms, of gender dysphoria will no longer be eligible for military service.

Services members with gender dysphoria will be separated from the military.

All service members will only serve in accordance with their sex.

Pronoun usage within the military must reflect servicemembers’ sex.

Sleeping, changing and bathing facilities will be designated based on biological sex.

The Department of Defense will not pay for transgender medical interventions.

The directive fulfilled President Trump’s January 27 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.”

The executive order made it the U.S. government’s policy to “establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.” It describes these requirements as “inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria” and “with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.”

After the Pentagon’s Feb. 26 directive, several transgender-identified service members filed a lawsuit asking the court to enjoin the military’s policy.

In a scathing 79-page preliminary injunction issued on March 18, Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the plaintiffs, preventing the Pentagon from implementing its policy.

Nominated to the court by former President Joe Biden, Judge Reyes became the “first openly LGBT” person to serve on the D.C. federal court in 2023.

During a hearing over the policy, Judge Reyes allegedly engaged in “hostile and egregious misconduct,” according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), causing it to file a misconduct complaint with the D.C. Circuit over her behavior.

The complaint alleges that Judge Reyes questioned a DOJ attorney about his religious beliefs and then “used him unwillingly as a physical prop in her courtroom theatrics.” The judge “attempted to embarrass counsel by physically directing him as part of a rhetorical exercise in from of other attorneys.”

Judge Reyes’ misconduct “raises serious concerns about her compliance with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges” and “demonstrate[s] potential bias, raising serious concerns about her ability to preside impartially in this matter,” the DOJ said.

The district court gave the Department of Justice until March 21 to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

After Judge Reyes’ decision, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller blasted the ruling on X.

“District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?” Miller wrote.

Miller has also criticized other federal district judges’ decisions, including an attempt to block the deportation of Venezuelan gang members of Tren de Aragua, a foreign terrorist organization; a ruling preventing DOGE from discontinuing federal aid contracts; and a ruling that the Trump administration must reinstate 25,000 fired federal workers.

Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief. Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day…

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) March 19, 2025

The Federalist Papers are a collection of writings penned by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to support the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Most of them were written between October 1787 and April 1788.

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton wrote that the judicial branch “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” He continues,

The judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.
It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

In other words, the judicial branch was supposed to be the least likely to harm the political rights of American citizens because it does not control the budget or spending decisions, and because it depends upon the executive branch (the president) to enforce its decisions.

However, in the last century, federal judges have awarded themselves increasing levels of power. Judges have frequently infringed upon Congress’ Article I power through judicial activism, as seen in the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade and the legalization of “same-sex marriage” in Obergefell v. Hodges.

Now, arguably, unelected federal judges are infringing upon the president’s Article II power by determining what policies he can implement, which illegal immigrants he can deport, which workers he can fire or hire, what monies he can distribute, what websites the executive branch must host, and more.

This begs the question: Are we the people governed by our elected representatives and the duly elected president? Or by unelected federal judges?

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

So, one must ask: Does the president direct the U.S. military, or does a single unelected federal judge?

We’ll likely find out the answer in the months ahead as the DOJ likely appeals the ruling to the D.C. Circuit, with a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court also in the cards.

Related articles and resources:

Trump Ends ‘Transgenderism’ and DEI in the Military, Reinstates Wrongly Discharged Troops

President Trump to Medically Discharge ‘Trans’ Soldiers

President Biden Reinstates Obama Order Permitting Transgender Troops to Serve Openly in Military

Photo from Getty Images.

The post Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Ban on ‘Transgender’ Service Members appeared first on Daily Citizen.

Read More

Daily Citizen

Generated by Feedzy