A federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden has once again inserted the judiciary into military policy, blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military. The decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes marks yet another instance of judicial overreach, where an unelected official is attempting to override the executive branch’s authority to set military standards.
Reyes issued a preliminary injunction against the order, which was signed by Trump on January 27. The order stated that “expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.” It also directed the Department of Defense to update its medical and pronoun policies, emphasizing that “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
Reyes, however, ruled that Trump’s policy likely violated constitutional rights, delaying enforcement of her order until Friday to allow time for an appeal. In a statement dripping with ideological bias, she claimed that “every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect.” A noble sentiment, but one that does not override the military’s responsibility to establish fitness standards.
Judge Reyes’s opinion relies in part on her independent research into disorders of sexual development (DSD), which is not part of the record. Judges are not allowed to do this.
Not surprisingly, her information is wrong. For example, she cites the erroneous figure that 1.7% of… pic.twitter.com/gkPtA7jPUv
— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) March 18, 2025
In a move that raised eyebrows, Reyes even cited Hamilton, the Broadway musical, in her ruling. “Women were ‘included in the sequel’ when passage of the Nineteenth Amendment granted them the right to vote in 1920,” she wrote in a footnote, before linking the right to vote to transgender military service. Constitutional scholars may debate the merits of her ruling, but referencing a musical to justify legal precedent is hardly a serious judicial approach.
The ruling sparked immediate backlash from the Trump administration. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller slammed the decision on X, stating, “District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?” Miller also warned that “unelected rogue judges are trying to steal years of time from a 4-year term,” calling judicial obstruction “the most egregious theft one can imagine: robbing the vote and voice of the American People.”
The Pentagon had already moved forward with implementing Trump’s policy. On February 26, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a directive disqualifying individuals with gender dysphoria from military service, citing the need for “high mental and physical standards.” The administration argued that military officials, not judges, should determine service eligibility.
This latest legal battle follows Trump’s previous efforts to bar transgender individuals from serving in the military during his first term—a policy that the Supreme Court allowed to take effect. However, Biden reversed the policy upon taking office, a move that enabled a small number of service members—less than 1% of the active-duty force—to serve under new guidelines.
So an LGBT-identifying judge relied on her own “research” to decide that she can control military policy. Absolutely insane stuff.
Will Justice Roberts be releasing a statement about this too or nah? https://t.co/hgKwgGQG1v
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) March 19, 2025
Now, with Trump back in office, the policy has once again been challenged in court. Six service members and two prospective enlistees sued the government, with attorneys from the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law arguing that Trump’s executive order violated their Fifth Amendment rights.
Reyes acknowledged concerns about judicial overreach, stating that “judicial overreach is no less pernicious than executive overreach.” Yet, in the same breath, she justified her intervention by arguing that the courts must “uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”
