By: Richard L. Smith
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin has joined a coalition of 20 state attorneys general in filing an amicus brief supporting a legal challenge against former President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military.
The brief argues that the ban is unconstitutional, undermines national security, and discriminates against transgender service members, including those in the National Guard. 
According to a statement released by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, the coalition is backing a group of current and prospective transgender service members who have filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The court has scheduled a hearing on February 18, 2025, to consider the request for a preliminary injunction against the order.
Attorney General Condemns Policy as Harmful and Unconstitutional
“Unlike those who devised this ban, the people serving in our armed forces have always put the interests of their country above themselves,” said Attorney General Platkin.
“Trump’s ban on transgender service members isn’t just discriminatory—it violates our Constitution and makes our country and our state less safe.”
Platkin emphasized that transgender individuals have served honorably in the U.S. military for years. He argued that the ban is politically motivated and damages military readiness by forcing the discharge of trained personnel and blocking qualified recruits solely because of their gender identity.
Legal and National Security Implications
The coalition contends that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment and undermines national defense. In their filing, the states argue that banning transgender individuals from military service:
- Weakens military preparedness by depriving the armed forces of qualified, experienced personnel.
- Harms state emergency response efforts, as the National Guard relies on transgender members to fulfill critical roles.
- Contradicts previous military assessments, which found that allowing transgender service members to serve openly does not negatively impact unit cohesion or readiness.
A 2014 study estimated that approximately 150,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and National Guard or Reserve members identify as transgender.
Research also indicates that transgender individuals are nearly twice as likely to serve in the military compared to their cisgender counterparts.
Military policy has evolved on this issue in recent years. The longstanding ban on transgender service members was lifted in 2016, reinstated under the Trump administration, and overturned again in 2021.
During these transitions, many transgender service members in the National Guard disclosed their identities without disrupting military operations.
States Standing Against the Ban
Alongside New Jersey, the attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin have joined in filing the amicus brief.
The coalition maintains that barring transgender individuals from service is not only legally indefensible but also detrimental to military effectiveness. Military experts have twice concluded—through comprehensive reviews—that permitting transgender individuals to serve openly benefits the country’s defense. 
Looking Ahead
As the legal battle develops, officials said the coalition remains committed to defending the rights of transgender service members and ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to serve their country without facing discrimination.
Officials said the February 18 hearing will be critical in determining whether the ban will be halted while the lawsuit proceeds.