in their opposition to the motion to intervene filed on november 14, usdoj argued "the military's longstanding policy restricting the accession of transgender persons has been in place for decades without challenge from california," questioning why california would choose to intervene now, especially two months after the lawsuit was originally filed. in its response on november 16, the state of california countered by noting "the military's historical discrimination against transgender individuals does not alter the fact that the current practice conflicts with california's antidiscrimination laws, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex" and "the department of defense's determination [published in the 2016 rand report] that sound and competent evidence did not justify the ban, the military's historical discrimination does not negate california's interest in challenging the current, patently discriminatory policy". on november 16, california's motion to intervene was granted and the scheduled november 20 hearing was continued to december 11.