FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 22, 2026
Contacts:
Lauren Gray, NCLR, lgray@nclrights.org, 917-985-0709
Amanda Johnston, GLAD Law, ajohnston@gladlaw.org 617-417-7769
“As the government concedes, these plaintiffs are highly qualified and have met every standard, with deployments before, during, and after transition,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter
WASHINGTON, DC—A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today heard oral arguments in Talbott v. USA (formerly Talbott v. Trump), a case on behalf of 30 transgender servicemembers and recruits challenging President Trump’s transgender military ban.
National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, noting the District Court’s finding that the ban is based on unconstitutional animus and does not reflect military judgment or medical policy protocols:
“The Hegseth Policy seeks an unprecedented, chaotic mass discharge of thousands of qualified troops based on nothing more than disapproval of transgender people. It attacks servicemembers who have deployed around the world in dangerous assignments in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and have received multiple awards for valor and performance.
“As the government concedes, these plaintiffs are highly qualified and have met every standard, with deployments before, during, and after transition. The government has attempted to paper over this animus by later claiming this is a neutral policy based on a medical condition. But that claim runs counter to the facts, these servicemembers’ obvious qualifications and performance, and how the military treats medical conditions.”
Co-counsel Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights stated:
“The District Court documented more than 80 detailed findings of fact supported by unrebutted evidence and held a three-day hearing that comprehensively examined all of the evidence and arrived at one unambiguous conclusion: the Hegseth policy is based on unconstitutional animus.
“We know and our plaintiffs’ own experience makes clear that transgender troops serve at the highest levels of our military with extraordinary commendations and performance records. There is no medical or military reason to support this indefensible ban.”
Lead plaintiff U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Nicolas Talbott responded to today’s arguments:
“My being transgender has no bearing on my dedication to the mission, my commitment to my unit, or my ability to perform my duties in accordance with the high standards expected of me and every servicemember. What matters in the military is your ability to do the job.”
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott issued the first nationwide preliminary injunction on March 18 blocking implementation of the transgender military ban resulting from President Trump’s 2025 executive order. In a forceful order in which Reyes held that the ban undermines national security and is likely unconstitutional, she called it “soaked with animus and dripping with pretext.”
On May 6, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in U.S. v. Shilling, a parallel case challenging President Trump’s transgender military ban in the 9th Circuit, granting a Trump administration motion to stay the preliminary injunction in that case—allowing Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect. The central difference between Shilling and Talbott is that the court in Shilling did not address the critical question of whether the policy is based on animus, a key finding by U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Talbott.
Talbott v. Trump was the first legal challenge filed against President Trump’s recent transgender military ban executive order. NCLR’s Shannon Minter and GLAD Law’s Jennifer Levi, the lead attorneys in Talbott, are transgender themselves and each have more than three decades of experience litigating landmark and key LGBTQ cases. Together, Minter and Levi led the legal fight in 2017 against the transgender military ban in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump, which also secured a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking that ban.
Talbott was brought by LGBTQ+ legal groups the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) and GLAD Law along with legal counsel from Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein, Wardenski P.C., and Kropf Moseley PLCC.
A recording of today’s oral arguments in Talbott is available on the court website at USCA-DC Oral Argument Recordings.
###
The National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR)is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. Since its founding, NCLR has maintained a longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and the LGBTQ community’s most vulnerable. www.nclrights.org
GLAD Law (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders) has been a leading force in LGBTQ+ rights for nearly 50 years. With deep roots in New England and impact nationwide, we use strategic litigation, legislation, and public education to fight discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and HIV status. GLAD Law’s bold strategy and precedent-setting victories have reshaped the legal landscape, advancing equality for all people facing discrimination and social barriers. www.gladlaw.org
