nclr and glad filed a response to the government's motion to dismiss on november 6, ahead of a november 20 hearing. in the response, the lawyers for the plaintiffs called the interim guidance a "red herring" and argued "the absence of any rational basis for the ban, its facial targeting of a disfavored group, and the highly unusual circumstances under which it was adopted lead to the inescapable inference that it is based on animus—discrimination for its own sake—and not on any legitimate military concerns." usdoj replied to support dismissal on november 13, stating "[t]he [presidential] memorandum [of august 25] itself shows that secretary mattis has not been limited to studying only when and how transgender service members should be discharged and that the outcome of the study has not been predetermined" and "[t]he "doe" court's reliance on statements that the president made on twitter several weeks before issuing his memorandum is misplaced." usdoj also argued "policymakers cannot bind their successors to a decision simply by conducting a study, and the rules of deference due the military are not tossed aside merely because current military officials are revisiting an issue that was studied by previous officials."