Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 70 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JANE DOE 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.

Civil Action No. 17-1597 (CKK)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants
ORDER
(November 27, 2017)
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ [67] Motion for Clarification of the Court’s
October 30, 2017 Order (“Defs.’ Mot.”). Defendants seek clarification regarding whether the
Court’s Order “prohibit[s] the Secretary of Defense from exercising his discretion to defer the
January 1, 2018 effective date for the accessions provisions of DTM 16-005 for a limited period
of time to further study whether the policy will impact military readiness and lethality or to
complete further steps needed to implement the policy.” Defs.’ Mot. at 2. In other words,
Defendants are asking whether the Court’s preliminary injunction Order bars the Secretary of
Defense from deferring the January 1, 2018 deadline previously established to begin allowing
transgender individuals to enlist in the military. Defendants argue that the Court could not “have
enjoined the Secretary of Defense from exercising such discretion because Plaintiffs have not
challenged the Secretary’s exercise of his independent authority to study whether the DTM 16005 will impact military readiness and lethality.” Id. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to
Defendants’ motion claiming that Defendants are not genuinely seeking a clarification, but are in
fact requesting a substantive change to the Court’s injunction. Plaintiffs argue that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to grant Defendants the relief they seek as a result of Defendants’ appeal of the
Court’s preliminary injunction Order.

 Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 70 Filed 11/27/17 Page 2 of 2

The Court’s clarification is as follows: In its October 30, 2017 Order, the Court
preliminarily enjoined Defendants from enforcing the following directives of the Presidential
Memorandum, referred to by the Court as the Accession and Retention Directives:
I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of
Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return
to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by
transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until
such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that
terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative
effects discussed above.
Presidential Memorandum § 1(b);
The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, shall . . . maintain the
currently effective policy regarding accession of transgender
individuals into military service beyond January 1, 2018, until such
time as the Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, provides a recommendation to the
contrary that I find convincing . . . .”
Presidential Memorandum § 2(a).
The Court explained that the effect of its Order was to revert to the status quo with regard to
accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the Presidential Memorandum—that
is, the retention and accession policies established in the June 30, 2016 Directive-type
Memorandum as modified by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017. Those
policies allowed for the accession of transgender individuals into the military beginning on
January 1, 2018. Any action by any of the Defendants that changes this status quo is
preliminarily enjoined.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge