Trans troops ask judge to protect everyone targeted by Pete Hegseth's military ban

The legal battle over President Donald Trump's transgender military ban is entering a new phase that could determine whether the challenge proceeds on behalf of a handful of plaintiffs or thousands of transgender service members nationwide.

Attorneys representing transgender troops asked a federal judge on Friday to certify a nationwide class in Talbott v. United States, a challenge to the administration's policy. The move would allow the lawsuit to proceed on behalf of all transgender people currently serving in the military and those seeking to enlist.

The Trump administration has recently resumed efforts to remove transgender people from military service, while courts continue grappling with how broad judicial relief can be after the Supreme Court sharply limited the use of nationwide injunctions last year.

For the plaintiffs, class certification offers a path toward protecting far more than the individuals whose names appear on the lawsuit. "This case is exceptionally well-suited for class certification," attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a filing Friday.

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

The lawsuit challenges Executive Order 14183 and the implementing policy issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which the administration says addresses military readiness and medical standards. Plaintiffs argue the policy is a categorical ban on transgender military service disguised as a medical regulation.

Judge Ana Reyes appeared sympathetic to that view when she issued a preliminary injunction earlier in the case, writing that the policy effectively bans transgender people from serving. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit later narrowed portions of that relief but recently allowed parts of Reyes's ruling to stand.

Now, the question before the court is whether the case should proceed as a challenge brought by a handful of named plaintiffs or as one brought on behalf of an entire class of people affected by the ban.

The Justice Department says it should not.

Government attorneys argue that certifying a nationwide class could interfere with parallel litigation in Washington state, where another group of transgender service members is challenging the same policy in Shilling v. United States. They also contend that the proposed class is too broad and too difficult to define because it relies on the plaintiffs' definition of transgender identity. The Trump administration does not recognize trans people as legitimate.

The government argues that class members have experienced different circumstances. Some plaintiffs, they claim, “voluntarily” retired or separated from military service, while others remain in uniform and face administrative separation proceedings. The so-called “voluntary” option to leave was forced on trans service members who have told The Advocate that they had no choice.

Those differences, the Justice Department says, mean the plaintiffs have not shown the kind of common injury required for class certification. The plaintiffs counter that the administration is describing individual circumstances while, they say, ignoring that every class member is affected by the same policy.

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

The reply brief explains that the military ban is a single government action applied uniformly across the armed forces. Whether a service member has already separated, is facing separation proceedings, or hopes to enlist in the future, plaintiffs argue, the legal question remains. Can the federal government exclude transgender people from military service simply because of who they are?

Their attorneys also accuse the government of attempting to relitigate an issue that both Reyes and the D.C. Circuit have already addressed. Throughout the litigation, administration lawyers have argued that the policy is based on gender dysphoria rather than transgender status itself. The plaintiffs respond that courts reviewing the policy have repeatedly concluded otherwise.

In Friday's filing, they pointed to previous rulings finding that the policy is "aimed squarely at transgender persons" and argued that the government's reliance on gender dysphoria diagnoses is simply a mechanism for excluding transgender people from service.

For decades, civil rights organizations often sought nationwide injunctions to block federal policies affecting large groups of people. But the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA significantly narrowed that avenue, prompting advocates to explore other ways of obtaining broad relief.

Class actions have emerged as one of the most promising alternatives.

Reyes has not yet ruled on the motion.