on march 2, usdoj followed up with a second motion to remove the president as a defendant and dissolve the injunction with respect to the president, arguing the "plaintiffs may not obtain—and the court may not order—injunctive or declaratory relief directly against the president for his official conduct" but conceding "in cases involving the president and other defendants, courts avoid granting relief against the president and instead grant relief only against subordinate officials in the executive branch. the plaintiffs countered by arguing the move was "a contrived route to discovery in a case where the president’s decision caused plaintiffs’ injuries, the genesis and purpose of that decision are central questions in the case, and the executive office of the president maintains records that may be critical to the litigation." usdoj clarified their position by asserting that " a court may not grant injunctive or declaratory relief against the president for his official, non-ministerial conduct particularly where, as here, relief granted against subordinate executive officials would provide full relief to plaintiffs" and outlined a path forward by stating "the court could dismiss the president from the case, review the constitutionality of the operative policy governing military service by transgender individuals, and, if the court finds the policy to be unconstitutional, issue an injunction and/or a declaratory judgment against the other defendants".