Lawyers ask judge to certify case to protect all trans troops affected by Trump military ban

Transgender service members challenging President Donald Trump’s military ban are pressing for a nationwide class action, as a federal court sets a timeline for the next phase of the case.

In a series of filings on Wednesday in Talbott v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs submitted a fifth amended complaint alongside a motion for class certification, supported by extensive declarations describing the policy’s impact across the armed forces.

The lawsuit is brought by 30 transgender service members and prospective enlistees. The filings meet a deadline set by U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, who approved a briefing schedule requiring the government to respond by May 29 and plaintiffs to reply by June 12.

Related: Judge hints at federal class action, orders DOJ evidence in trans military ban case

Related: The Pentagon forced out a transgender Army major. Now her story is Emmy-nominated

The class certification push comes at a pivotal legal moment. In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the use of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA, limiting lower courts’ ability to block federal policies affecting parties not to the case.

Lauren Gray, vice president of communications and public affairs at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, told The Advocate that the class certification request is designed to ensure any ruling applies broadly.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision … we want to ensure any favorable ruling would protect all transgender servicemembers — not just the plaintiffs in our case,” Gray said. Without class certification, even a favorable ruling could apply only to the individual plaintiffs, leaving thousands of others subject to the policy.

The lawsuit challenges Trump’s January 2025 executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon to bar transgender people from military service, a policy plaintiffs say amounts to a sweeping exclusion of qualified troops.

Among those leading the challenge is Shannon Minter, NCLR’s legal director, who was named this week to the annual TIME100 Most Influential People list. Minter told The Advocate on Wednesday that the military ban is one of the most urgent fights facing transgender Americans, pointing to the removal of service members who have demonstrated their ability to serve.

Related: DOJ hedges on Trump's anti-trans views while defending military ban in federal appeals court

Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban

“The injustice of kicking out transgender service members who have done nothing but a stellar job of serving our country is just unbearable,” he said.

In March 2025, Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban, finding it likely unconstitutional and “soaked in animus.” Last May, the Supreme Court, ruling in Shilling v. United States, a similar case in Washington state, allowed the policy to take effect while litigation continues, raising the stakes for those currently serving.

Now, plaintiffs are documenting what they say are real-time consequences.

Across the filings, service members describe disruptions to their careers, uncertainty about their ability to continue serving, and barriers to medical care. Plaintiffs argue these harms are consistent across branches, underscoring their claim that the policy operates uniformly nationwide.

That uniformity is central not only to their constitutional claims, but to their effort to meet the legal requirements for class certification — and to secure relief that extends beyond a handful of individuals.

Minter said the case reflects a broader fight over whether transgender people can fully participate in American society.

“Transgender people want to just be able to participate in our society and contribute,” he said.