When ABC News reached the Department of Justice in late October about the first temporary blockage that stopped any ban on recruiting, a spokesperson said, "We disagree with the court's ruling and are now evaluating the next steps".
A federal judge in Seattle says she'll decide by December 8 whether to join her counterparts in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore in blocking the Trump administration's proposed transgender military ban.
Garbis, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, follows Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in DC, who also ruled against the ban in October, but only blocked the directives concerning joining and retaining military personnel.
President Donald Trump said on Twitter in July that the government would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the military in any capacity.
The Washington Post reports that a second federal judge has stopped the proposed ban of transgender individuals in the military, as service members are "already suffering harmful consequences".
New York Giants vs. Kansas City Chiefs: Top 5 matchups
Eli Manning is known to throw interceptions and the only commodity at wideout right now for the Giants is Sterling Shepard. NOTES: This was the first time since September 10, 1995, that the Giants and Chiefs went into overtime.
Garbis's ruling prevents the government from denying funding for sex reassignment surgeries.
Several transgender service members filed the lawsuit in August alleging the ban violated their right under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection under the law. Transgender service members have continued to serve in the meantime.
"The only uncertainties are how, not if, the policy will be implemented and whether, in some future context, the president might be persuaded to change his mind and terminate the policies he is now putting into effect", Garbis wrote.
But in a strongly-worded passage from his 53-page decision, Garbis wrote that the "capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy change".
"The lack of any justification for the abrupt policy change, combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military service members who have served our country capably and honorably, can not possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest", he wrote in his ruling. "Plaintiffs' lawsuit challenging military service requirements is premature for many reasons, including that the Defense Department is actively reviewing such service requirements, as the president ordered, and because none of the plaintiffs have established that they will be impacted by current policies on military service", Ehrsam said.