Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • WAGE-HOUR—OVERTIME—11th Cir.: Domestic service worker revives FLSA claims against Miami couple and their business
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—S.D.N.Y.: Comparator evidence bolsters Black director’s claim firing for retaliation against white contractor was discriminatory
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—D. Colo.: Denver employee failed to adequately request accommodation to COVID vax mandate
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Executive order underpinning SCA contractors' right of first refusal rescinded by Trump administration
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Trump executive order takes on DEI in the workplace: practical considerations for private employers
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Citing privacy concerns, executive branch employees sue over collection of employee information in unsecure server
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Lawsuit challenges Trump administration executive order rolling back civil servants’ rights
    • LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Transgender service members file suit over executive order
    • ON THE LABOR FRONT—Of workplace harmony and civility rules under the NLRA
    • OSHA NEWS—$308K in fines for fall, machine fatalities; whistleblower wins back wages
    • REPORTS—Cost increases challenge employers to find new ways to deliver value, mitigate risk while still containing costs
    • TORT CLAIMS—W.D. VA.: Employee survives motion to dismiss defamation claims against employer allegedly based on false statements of sexual harassment
    • WHISTLEBLOWERS—Mass. Sup. Ct.: EMT may pursue whistleblower claim following termination for reporting patient injury
    • WORTH NOTING—Federal appeals court cases of note
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Transgender service members file suit over executive order, (Jan 31, 2025)

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    They allege the transgender ban violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

    A group of six transgender service members, along with two who are prospective service members, have filed suit against President Donald Trump, Secretary o ...

    By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

    They allege the transgender ban violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

    A group of six transgender service members, along with two who are prospective service members, have filed suit against President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth and others alleging that the ban on transgender service members stemming from the President’s January 27, 2025, executive order violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

    Decorated service members. Many of the plaintiffs are longtime, well-decorated servicemembers, including a Major who has been awarded a Bronze Star, and they are joined by two prospective members of the military. They allege that were the prohibition on military service by transgender individuals, contemplated by the President’s Executive Order, to be implemented, they would be unable to pursue their careers through service to the United States people as members of the military. They would also lose income and access to benefits afforded to military members and their families.

    Equal protection violation alleged. They allege that, under the Fifth Amendment, the ban discriminates against them based on their sex and their transgender status, without lawful justification, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection component. “President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military was issued without any study of the effectiveness of transgender service members during the past four years or of any problems that may have arisen from their service,” they allege, “without any assessment of whether their service entailed greater costs, or without any assessment of whether any legitimate governmental concerns could be addressed by means other than a categorical ban.” Instead, they allege that the “ban reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status” and the “categorical exclusion of transgender people from military service lacks a rational basis, is arbitrary, and cannot be justified by sufficient federal interests.”

    They seek injunctive and other relief.

    The lawsuit was filed federal court in the District of Columbia; the case is No. 1:25-cv-240.

    News: LitigationNewsTrends WhiteHouseNews Discrimination IndividualRights

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use