Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BROCK STONE, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,

:

Defendants.

Civil Action No. GLR-17-2459

:
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants President Donald J. Trump, Acting Secretary
of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan,1 Secretary of the Army Mark Esper, Secretary of the Navy
Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Secretary of Homeland Security
Kirstjen Nielsen, and Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard Karl L. Schultz’s2 Motion to
Stay the Preliminary Injunction and Request for Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 234). The
Motion is ripe for disposition, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md.
2018). For the reasons outlined below, the Court will grant the Motion.
On July 26, 2017, President Trump published a series of Tweets stating, “[T]he United
States Government will not accept or allow . . . [t]ransgender individuals to serve in any

1

On January 1, 2019, President Trump appointed Shanahan Acting Secretary of
Defense. Accordingly, the Court substitutes Shanahan for James Mattis. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
25(d).
2
On June 1, 2018, President Trump appointed Schultz Commandant of the U.S. Coast
Guard. Accordingly, the Court substitutes Schultz for Paul Zukunft. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 2 of 6

capacity in the U.S. Military.” (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 148).3 On August 25, 2017, President
Trump issued a “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland
Security” (the “2017 Memorandum”), which formalized the ban on transgender service
members announced in his Tweets. (Id. ¶ 8). President Trump also directed the Secretary of
Defense to develop a plan for implementing the policy directives in the 2017 Memorandum
by February 21, 2018. (Id.).
On November 21, 2017, this Court issued a Preliminary Injunction enjoining
Defendants from enforcing or implementing certain “policies and directives” in the 2017
Memorandum. (Prelim. Inj. at 1–2, ECF No. 84). Three different federal district courts in
California, Washington, and Washington, D.C. also entered preliminary injunctions
prohibiting enforcement of President Trump’s July 26, 2017 Twitter announcement or certain
directives in the 2017 Memorandum. Stockman v. Trump, No. EDCV 17-1799 JGB (KKx),
2017 WL 9732572, at *16 (C.D.Cal. Dec. 22, 2017) (enjoining enforcement of “the
Accession, Retention, and Sex Reassignment Surgery Directives”); Karnoski v. Trump, No.
C17-1297-MJP, 2017 WL 6311305, at *10 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 11, 2017) (enjoining the
defendants from “taking any action relative to transgender individuals that is inconsistent
with the status quo that existed prior to President Trump’s July 26, 2017 announcement”),
appeal dismissed, No. 17-36009, 2017 WL 8229552 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2017); Doe 1 v.
Trump, 275 F.Supp.3d 167, 177, 217 (D.D.C. 2017) (enjoining enforcement of the

3

The Court provided additional factual background in its November 21, 2017 and
November 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinions (ECF Nos. 85, 227). The Court repeats only
facts relevant to the pending Motion.
2

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 3 of 6

“Accession and Retention Directives, corresponding with sections 1(b) and 2(a) of the [2017
Memorandum]”), vacated sub nom. Doe 2 v. Shanahan, No. 18-5257, 2019 WL 102309
(D.C.Cir. Jan. 4, 2019).
On February 22, 2018, the Secretary of Defense submitted to President Trump an
implementation plan (the “Implementation Plan”), which recommended changes to the
transgender service policy set forth in the 2017 Memorandum, including a grandfathering
provision that would permit transgender individuals currently serving in the military to
continue to do so. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 176–78). President Trump then issued a second
memorandum on March 23, 2018 (the “2018 Memorandum”) revoking the 2017
Memorandum and permitting the Secretary of Defense to proceed with the Implementation
Plan. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 179–80).
Because President Trump revoked the 2017 Memorandum, Defendants moved to
dissolve the Preliminary Injunction on March 23, 2018. (ECF No. 120). Also in March 2018,
Defendants moved to dissolve the preliminary injunctions in Stockman, Karnoski, and Doe 2.
Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Stockman v. Trump, No. 17-cv1799-JGB-KK (C.D.Cal. Mar. 23, 2018), ECF No. 82; Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the
Preliminary Injunction, Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297-MJP (W.D.Wash. Mar. 23,
2018), ECF No. 215; Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Doe 2 v.
Shanahan, No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2018), ECF No. 96. In Stockman,
Karnoski, and Doe 2, the district courts denied the motions to dissolve the preliminary
injunctions. Stockman v. Trump, 331 F.Supp.3d 990, 1004 (C.D.Cal. 2018); Doe 2 v. Trump,
3

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 4 of 6

315 F.Supp.3d 474, 498 (D.D.C. 2018), rev’d sub nom. Doe 2 v. Shanahan, No. 18-5257,
2019 WL 102309 (D.C.Cir. Jan. 4, 2019); Karnoski v. Trump, No. C17-1297-MJP, 2018 WL
1784464, at *14 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 13, 2018). The defendants appealed in each of these cases.
See Stockman v. Trump, No. 18-56539 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018); Doe 2 v. Shanahan, No. 185257 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 27, 2018); Karnoski v. Trump, No. 18-35347 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2018).
On January 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated without prejudice the preliminary injunction the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia had entered. Doe 2, 2019 WL 102309, at *1. On January 22,
2019, the United States Supreme Court issued an order staying the preliminary injunctions in
Karnoski and Stockman. Trump v. Karnoski, No. 18A625 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (order staying
preliminary injunction); Trump v. Stockman, No. 18A627 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (same).
On January 24, 2019, Defendants filed their Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction
and Request for Expedited Ruling. (ECF No. 234). Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on
January 30, 2019. (ECF No. 235). On February 13, 2019, Defendants filed their Reply. (ECF
No. 242).
In light of the Supreme Court’s Order, Defendants move for the Court to stay the
nationwide effect of this Court’s Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay of the
Preliminary Injunction’s nationwide effect. Instead, they oppose a stay of the Preliminary
Injunction as applied to five Plaintiffs—Niko Branco, John Doe 2, Ryan Wood, Airman First
Class Seven Ero George, and Petty Officer First Class Teagan Gilbert—to whom the
grandfathering provision does not apply because they either intend to enlist in the military or
4

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 5 of 6

become commissioned officers. Defendants argue that in staying the preliminary injunctions
in Karnoski and Stockman, the Supreme Court “necessarily rejected the option of leaving
each injunction in place as to the individual plaintiffs.” (Defs.’ Reply. at 3, ECF No. 242).
The Court agrees with Defendants.
Before the Supreme Court, the Stockman and Karnoski defendants presented the
option of narrowly tailoring the stays such that the injunctions would remain in effect only as
to the plaintiffs in those cases. See Application for a Stay in the Alternative to a Writ of
Certiorari Before Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at 37,
Trump v. Stockman, No. 18-678 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2018) (“At a minimum, the Court should stay
the nationwide scope of the injunction, such that the injunction bars the implementation of
the Mattis policy only as to the seven individual respondents in this case who are currently
serving in the military or seeking to join it.”); Application for a Stay in the Alternative to a
Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit at 40, Trump v. Karnoski, No. 18-678 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2018) (same, but directed at the
nine individual Karnoski plaintiffs). Presented with this choice, the Supreme Court decided
to stay the nationwide effect of the preliminary injunctions in Stockman and Karnoski
without any exceptions. Thus, the Supreme Court implicitly rejected the option to narrowly
tailor its stays so that the preliminary injunctions were still in effect as to the individual
plaintiffs. Further, the Stockman and Karnoski plaintiffs include transgender individuals who
intend to join the military, Stockman, 2017 WL 9732572, at *4–6; Karnoski, 2017 WL
6311305, at *3, like certain Plaintiffs in this case. The Court, therefore, cannot materially
5

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 249 Filed 03/07/19 Page 6 of 6

distinguish Plaintiffs in this case from those for whom the Supreme Court rejected a narrow
tailoring of the stays.
Thus, because the Court is bound by the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the
preliminary injunctions in their entirety, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion.4
Accordingly, it is this 7th day of March, 2019, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, hereby:
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Preliminary Injunction and Request
for Expedited Ruling (ECF No. 234) is GRANTED.
/s/
________________________
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

4

In issuing the present Order, the Court expresses no opinion on the merits of
Defendants’ pending Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 120),
including whether this Court’s Preliminary Injunction applies to both the 2017 Memorandum
and the 2018 Memorandum.
6