Skeptical judges grill Trump government lawyers on logic of 'meaningless process' in trans military ban

"What was scheduled to be a tightly timed appellate hearing in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, instead turned into a nearly three-hour grilling of the Trump administration's transgender military ban, as judges across ideological lines pressed government lawyers with pointed questions, voiced skepticism about the policy's mechanics, and repeatedly zeroed in on whether the ban is designed to predetermine the removal of transgender troops already serving honorably."

"At oral argument in Talbott v. USA, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared deeply engaged, and often unconvinced, by the government's claims that the ban is a neutral medical policy entitled to sweeping military deference. Instead, judges repeatedly questioned whether the policy's waiver and separation processes are meaningful at all, or merely formalities masking a foregone outcome."

"For Nicolas Talbott, the case's lead plaintiff, the tenor of the hearing mattered. Talbott traveled from Ohio to D.C. to sit in the courtroom and listen as judges debated whether people like him should be allowed to keep the jobs they are already doing. "I feel like cautiously optimistic is becoming my catchphrase," Talbott told The Advocate afterward. "I joked to a friend recently - I kind of need an action figure at this point. Pull the string, and that's what it says.""

A scheduled short appellate hearing became a nearly three-hour session in which judges across ideological lines intensely questioned government lawyers about the Trump administration's transgender military ban. Judges expressed skepticism that the policy is a neutral medical rule entitled to broad military deference and focused on whether waiver and separation procedures are substantive or hollow. The panel considered whether to uphold a district court's preliminary injunction blocking enforcement while the case proceeds, not the ultimate legality of the ban. Plaintiff Nicolas Talbott attended the hearing and described feeling cautiously optimistic about the panel's engagement.

Read at Advocate.com