Transgender National Guard Employee Sues Over Federal Bathroom Ban
A transgender employee of the Illinois National Guard has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s policy that bars transgender and intersex federal employees from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. The case, brought by Anne Withrow, underscores ongoing legal disputes over civil rights protections for transgender workers in federal service.
Withrow, who has served the Illinois National Guard for 13 years—first as a distinguished soldier and later as a civilian military and family readiness specialist—filed the lawsuit in November in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint seeks to block the administration’s directive that restricts restroom use based on “biological sex” as defined by an executive order signed in January.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Withrow by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the ACLU of Illinois, the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ACLU, and Democracy Forward. It also names the National Guard Bureau, the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management as defendants
In legal filings, Withrow alleges that the bathroom policy and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. The complaint further contends that the policy breaches the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A 2020 Supreme Court ruling established that Title VII protects transgender workers from discrimination based on sex, including gender identity, setting a legal foundation for Withrow’s challenge.
Everyday Impact and Workplace Barriers
In May, after an executive branch directive intended to enforce “restroom use based on sex, not identity,” Withrow was informed by supervisors that she could no longer use women’s restrooms at National Guard facilities. As a result, she was limited to a single‑occupancy restroom at one location, while other facilities she regularly visited as part of her duties lacked any single‑occupancy options. Some of those locations are remote armories, making access to restrooms an ongoing and significant challenge.
The practical effect of the policy has been severe for Withrow and others in similar positions: she reportedly began restricting food and water intake during work hours to avoid needing a restroom, measures that demonstrably impact health and well‑being.
In public statements, Withrow explained that her gender identity had never interfered with her job performance or working relationships prior to the directive. “Since coming out nearly a decade ago, the fact that I’m transgender has had no negative impact on my abilities as a worker and has caused no disruption or disturbance among my colleagues or supervisors,” she said. She added that forcing employees to choose between essential workplace needs and their ability to serve was fundamentally unjust
Legal advocates representing Withrow assert that denying access to bathrooms that align with an employee’s gender identity is a form of discrimination that cannot be justified by workplace policy. “If you cannot use the bathroom at work, you cannot go to work,” said a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
Broader Legal and Policy Context
The lawsuit comes amid a series of federal policies and legal battles over transgender rights in government employment and military service. Earlier in 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, directing federal agencies to designate intimate spaces such as restrooms and locker rooms by biological sex as defined at birth. Critics say this language reflects an administrative effort to roll back previous protections that allowed transgender people to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.
The controversy extends beyond restrooms. In February, the administration issued an order intended to ban most transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, prompting legal challenges. Federal courts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking parts of that ban, and groups representing service members have sought to maintain those protections under Title VII and equal protection principles.
States and civil rights coalitions have also weighed in. A group of 20 state attorneys general filed briefs urging courts to block the military ban, arguing it jeopardizes both civil rights and national security by excluding qualified personnel.
Under longstanding federal employment law and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, employees have the right to work free from discrimination based on gender identity and to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their identity once they begin presenting that way in the workplace. That guidance also encourages agencies to designate single‑occupancy restrooms as gender‑neutral, though it does not allow restricting transgender employees to these options alone.
A Fight for Dignity and Equality
Withrow framed her legal challenge as a matter of principle as well as career protection. Beyond her years of service and professional accomplishments, she emphasized that the lawsuit is about human dignity and equal treatment under the law. “I think that it’s important to fight for what’s right, even if it becomes more difficult or inconvenient,” she said in a recent interview. “It’s a question of human dignity, it’s a question of equal treatment under the law, and I was not raised to back down from either of those things.”
Supporters of the complaint argue that transgender and intersex federal employees should not be forced into policies that single them out for unequal treatment. They contend the issue transcends restroom access and speaks to broader equality and workplace fairness.
The outcome of Withrow’s lawsuit could have implications far beyond her immediate circumstances. If successful, the challenge may set precedent for how federal agencies implement workplace policies affecting gender identity, employment protections, and civil rights. It may also influence ongoing debates about the role of executive authority in shaping nondiscrimination policies for federal workers.
As the case moves forward in federal court, attention will likely focus not only on the legal merits but also on how evolving interpretations of federal civil rights law apply to transgender and intersex employees serving their government.