The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN.

[4] 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".

[8] The complaint sought an immediate injunction based on the First and Fifth Amendments, and described the ban on transgender service as "[d]ripping with animus" and "unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification".

[9] The State of Washington filed a motion to intervene in the case "to protect its quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and sovereign interests from a policy that unconstitutionally targets transgender Washingtonians" on September 25, 2017.

In the motion to dismiss, USDOJ called the challenge "premature several times over", asserting the Presidential Memorandum of August 25 merely ordered further studies and no policy changes would be implemented before March 18.

But it is difficult to imagine a situation where the extraordinary deference sought by the government would be less appropriate than here, where the President has discarded the military's own considered judgment without any factual support for doing so.

"[13]: 11  USDOJ filed a response in support of dismissal on November 9, again asserting that since the issue was still being studied, "it remains uncertain whether Plaintiffs will suffer a cognizable injury caused by the military's future policy.

[18] Not only did the DoD previously conclude that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly would not impact military effectiveness and readiness, the working group tasked to evaluate the issue also concluded that prohibiting open service would have negative impacts including loss of qualified personnel, erosion of unit cohesion, and erosion of trust in command.

Even giving the government the benefit of a more deferential standard of review under Brown, 444 U.S. at 355,[19] the policy does not survive.On December 11, 2017, Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Presidential Memorandum of August 25,[21] stating the "Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the policy prohibiting transgender individuals from serving openly is substantially related to important government interests" and "the prohibition on military service by transgender individuals was announced by President Trump on Twitter, abruptly and without any evidence of considered reason or deliberation.

[27]: 2–3  The Plaintiffs and the State of Washington filed opposing motions on December 19, 2017, stating "the constitutional defects in the accession ban cannot be cured by merely having another government official re-authorize its extension, even if acting on a supposedly independent basis"[28]: 2  and noting that "[t]hough the first ruling was over six weeks ago, Defendants waited until late last week to seek an emergency stay.

"[29]: 1  In the reply to support the motion to dismiss filed on December 20, USDOJ argued that "Plaintiffs cannot plausibly characterize as irrational the current accession policy—a rule that, until 2016, was upheld by military leadership under every president for decades.

"[35]: 3–5  The Plaintiffs noted that USDOJ had "significant advance notice" prior to the filing of the motion for summary judgment, but "Defendants took no steps to obtain any discovery whatsoever in the two months before their opposition deadline.

"[36]: 3  The State of Washington, as the Intervenor, wrote "the Rule 56(d) request appears to be a strategy to buy time until defendants can finalize and produce the new "study" that they hope will provide the missing support for the Ban.

"[41]: 1  The court denied the motion on April 13, 2018,[42] holding that "Each of the claims ... remains viable," and that "because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class.

[54] The case was still pending in the district court as of January 25, 2021, when President Joe Biden issued an executive order revoking Trump's transgender ban.