Story perspectives

Court Rules Against Trump’s Military Transgender Ban, Restores Education Materials

10/22/2025

Left

Transgender Service Challenge

A Court of Appeals panel in Portland, Oregon heard Shilling v. Trump challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service.
The plaintiffs, including active-duty service members, argue the ban is unconstitutional.
In Virginia, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to restore nearly 600 books and lessons on race and gender in military schools.
The judge ruled the Trump restrictions violated First Amendment rights and criticized the opaque removal process.

Right

New York Lawsuit Filed

New York City filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education after it withdrew $47 million in grants over alleged Title IX violations under the Education Amendments of 1972.
The city argues the funding cuts were unlawful and politically motivated because they were implemented without warning.
The lawsuit challenges President Donald Trump's Title IX interpretation, which prioritizes biological sex over gender identity and could influence how districts fund programs.

History

Historical Context

The Shilling v. Trump case in 2019 underscored ongoing legal disputes over LGBTQ+ rights in military service, with the ACLU representing service members against a federal ban. This case aligns with New York City's lawsuit against the Department of Education over $47 million in Title IX funding cuts, reflecting broader civil rights tensions that could influence future gender and education policies in the U.S.

1 of 3

Transgender Service Challenge

A Court of Appeals panel in Portland, Oregon heard Shilling v. Trump challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service.
The plaintiffs, including active-duty service members, argue the ban is unconstitutional.
In Virginia, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to restore nearly 600 books and lessons on race and gender in military schools.
The judge ruled the Trump restrictions violated First Amendment rights and criticized the opaque removal process.

1 / 3