The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people[1][2] under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.

[6] Trump first announced a policy banning transgender people from serving in the military in "any capacity" in a series of tweets on July 26, 2017, stating that allowing such service members would incur "tremendous medical costs and disruption".

"[13] On October 4, the United States Department of Justice Civil Division filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Jane Doe v. Trump and to oppose the application for a preliminary injunction, arguing instead "that challenge is premature several times over" and that Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance, issued on September 14, 2017, protects currently-serving transgender personnel from involuntary discharge or denial of reenlistment.

Plaintiffs claim that the President's directives cannot survive such scrutiny because they are not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally.

However, the court denied a preliminary injunction against the ban on government-funded sex reassignment surgery for service members "because no Plaintiff has demonstrated that they are substantially likely to be impacted by this directive".

[28]: 7–8  In opposition, Plaintiffs filed a motion on December 8, noting that preparations for accession of transgender candidates were largely complete by July 1, 2017, and an additional six months had been added.

The memorandum added "the government offers no explanation why a ban on accession by transgender people would be any less unconstitutional if it were imposed by the Secretary [of Defense] based on his own initiative rather than at the direction of the President.

On the other hand, as the Court has already explained, there is no reason to conclude on the present record that Defendants intend to implement any sort of policy allowing for the accession of transgender individuals.

[35]: 2  In their response filed on December 15, Plaintiffs noted "the government cannot credibly claim that it will be irreparably harmed by implementing a policy that it was on track to implement six months ago" and the "facially discriminatory ban on accession and service by transgender people serves no governmental interest sufficient to satisfy the Fifth Amendment, and the district court's injunction barring its enforcement is [...] the ordinary remedy for unconstitutional government action".

In sharp contrast, on the morning of July 26, 2017, President Trump suddenly announced a ban on transgender persons serving in the military in a series of three tweets.

No effort was made—nor evidence presented—to show that this pronouncement resulted from any analysis of the cost or disruption allegedly caused by allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military.

[38] In December 2017, the Plaintiffs served a discovery request aimed at identifying when and on what basis President Trump decided to ban military service by transgender persons.

[42] USDOJ formally filed a motion for a protective order on February 27, 2018, complaining about the "multiple, burdensome discovery requests [issued] directly to the President of the United States" and noting the responsiveness in issuing "more than 80,000 pages of documents on an expedited, rolling basis from the Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Health Agency, and the Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy".

[53] In addition to President Trump, the amended suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense (James Mattis), the Army (Ryan McCarthy, acting), the Navy (Richard Spencer), the Air Force (Heather Wilson), and Homeland Security (Kirstjen Nielsen).