Stone v. Trump, 280 F. Supp. 3d 747

In June 2016 DoD adopted an Open Service Directive permitting transgender persons to serve openly, allowing in‑service transition and updating accession standards with an implementation date for accession changes of July 1, 2017.
On July 26, 2017 President Trump announced via Twitter a ban on transgender service; on August 25, 2017 he issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the DoD and DHS to return to pre‑2016 policy (prohibiting accession and authorizing discharge) and to curtail funding for sex‑reassignment surgery, with specific effective dates and a February 21, 2018 deadline for an implementation plan.
Secretary Mattis issued Interim Guidance deferring immediate action pending the plan; plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the Presidential Memorandum as violating the Fifth Amendment and 10 U.S.C. § 1074.
Plaintiffs are current and aspiring transgender service members who allege imminent risk of discharge, denial of accession, cancellation or postponement of medically‑necessary transition‑related surgeries, career disruption, and stigma.
The court considered related D.C. district court reasoning in Doe 1 v. Trump and concluded the Presidential Memorandum’s directives are likely to be implemented and therefore present imminent harms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge Retention Directive	Plaintiffs contend directive puts them at substantial risk of discharge and withdraws rights gained in 2016	Defendants say Interim Guidance maintains status quo so no imminent injury	Court: Plaintiffs have standing; risk of discharge and loss of rights is a concrete, imminent injury
Standing to challenge Accession Directive	Plaintiffs (George, Gilbert) will be denied commissioning/accession imminently	Defendants say no one has been denied accession and plans are speculative; waivers available	Court: Plaintiffs have standing; George and Gilbert’s plans are sufficiently concrete and imminent
Standing to challenge Sex‑Reassignment Surgery Directive	Plaintiffs with approved/ongoing treatment (Cole, Stone) will be denied or delayed medically‑necessary surgeries	Defendants say Interim Guidance preserves care and Directive contains a health exception that may cover plaintiffs	Court: Plaintiffs have standing; plausible that exception will not cover post‑March surgeries, injury not speculative
Likelihood of success on merits (Equal Protection)	Plaintiffs argue directives discriminate on transgender/gender‑identity basis and lack legitimate justification	Defendants invoke military deference and study; argue rational basis for policy change	Court: Plaintiffs likely to succeed; intermediate scrutiny appropriate and directives appear not justified by genuine military considerations

Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) (standing standards and Article III limits)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (requirements for concreteness in injury‑in‑fact)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (rigorous standing test where merits implicate political branches)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (three‑part standing test)
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (Fifth Amendment protects equal treatment of service members)
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) (equal protection principles under Due Process)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard)
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973) (irrational government classification invalid)
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (substantive due process conscience‑shocking standard)
Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, 722 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2013) (preliminary injunction factors in Fourth Circuit)