on march 23, 2018, president trump issued a new memorandum which revoked the prior memorandum of august 25, 2017, and allowed the secretaries of defense and homeland security to "exercise their authority to implement any appropriate policies concerning military service by transgender individuals." the usdoj immediately filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing the case is moot since president trump had shifted responsibility for the proposed ban in the march 2018 memorandum: "if plaintiffs fear "future" injury from the proposed new policy, which they have not challenged, those harms would stem from the independent action of the secretaries of defense and homeland security in implementing that policy, not the 2017 or 2018 memoranda." in addition, usdoj argued "the new policy, by contrast, contains several exceptions allowing some transgender individuals, including many plaintiffs here, to serve, and it is the product of independent military judgment following an extensive study", citing the panel of authors responsible for the department of defense report attached to the mattis memorandum, which had met 13 times in 90 days. usdoj also argued the new policy is constitutional because it should be subject to highly deferential review rather than a stricter rational basis review. the new policy would disqualify "individuals with gender dysphoria who require or have undergone gender transition" and require that "service members generally serve in their biological sex" on the basis of unit cohesion, military readiness, cost, and fairness.