When it comes to trans kids playing team sports, anti-LGBTQ activists and politicians have been trying to block them from joining teams with other players of the gender they identify with. But two recent rulings have brought good news — and hopefully a signal that things are changing.

An 11-year-old girl identified as “Janie Doe” sued the Hanover County, Virginia school district after the school board tried to block her from playing on the girls’ tennis team. On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge M. Hannah Lauck issued an injunction forcing the school district to let her try out for the team, according to the Hill.

The injunction isn’t a final ruling — Judge Lauck is yet to hear the full case. But the injunction is a sign that Lauck may rule that the Hanover County board went against Title IX, the law banning sex-based discrimination in schools, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, according to the ACLU, who filed the lawsuit on Doe’s behalf.

READ MORE: Lone Dissenter Calls Texas Supreme Court Transgender Ruling ‘Cruel, Unconstitutional’

“Janie has established that the Board excluded her, on the basis of sex, from participating in an education program when it denied her application to try out for (and if selected, to participate on) her school’s girls’ tennis team,” wrote the U.S. District Court Judge M. Hannah Lauck. She added the school board’s ban of trans kids on gendered teams “contravene[s] the strong public interest in educational institutions being free of discrimination of all kinds, including on the basis of gender identity.”

In a separate case, two transgender teens filed suit against New Hampshire over H.B. 1205, a law banning trans women and girls from joining women’s teams at public schools and colleges. The two teens, Parker Tirrell, 15, and Iris Turmelle, 14, make similar arguments as in the Doe case, that the law violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

The law was due to go into effect on Sunday, but on Monday, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty issued an emergency injunction against the law while the case is decided.

Tirrell attended court Monday in her soccer uniform, according to LGBTQ Nation, and headed directly to her team’s soccer practice.

“We’re there for each other, win or lose,” Tirrell said in a press release. “Not being allowed to play on my team with the other girls would disconnect me from so many of my friends and make school so much harder. I just want to be myself and to learn, play, and support my teammates like I did last year.”

Like the Doe case, the ruling is just a pause on H.B. 1205 while the case is decided, but the willingness of the judge to issue the injunction could be seen as a good sign for the future of the case.

President Joe Biden said he was using his clemency authority to pardon LGBTQ service members who were convicted of violating the military policy against homosexuality. This comes less than a week after a magistrate judge ruled a lawsuit against the Department of Defense over the discharges of gay veterans could move forward.

Biden issued a statement on X Wednesday morning announcing the decision.

Despite courage and sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQI+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I'm using my clemency authority to pardon certain former service members who were convicted simply for being themselves. pic.twitter.com/KquoMizp1V

— President Biden (@POTUS) June 26, 2024

“Today, I am righting an historic wrong by using my clemency authority to pardon many former service members who were convicted for simply being themselves,” the statement read. “Despite their courage and great sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQI+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

READ MORE: After Six Decades, Lesbian Veteran’s Military Discharge Finally Upgraded to ‘Honorable’

In this case, clemency only applies to those who were convicted or court-martialed.

While in 1993, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy went into effect, LGBTQ service members could serve while in the closet. Their superiors could not ask if they were gay, but they could not disclose it themselves, either. Those who came out would be discharged, usually with other-than-honorable discharges.

However, sodomy was still criminalized in the U.S. military, meaning that service members could be court-martialed and convicted if they had homosexual sex. Biden’s order affects these service members.

The order will also apply to service members who have since died, according to NBC News.

This follows the ruling on Friday from Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero that a lawsuit filed by five LGBTQ veterans against the DOD could proceed. The five veterans were suing to upgrade their discharges to honorable and remove all references to sexual orientation from their discharge paperwork.

Veterans who were given other-than-honorable discharges face a number of hurdles. They are unable to re-enlist, even now that the rule they violated is no longer in effect. They are also blocked from accessing services from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In February, the DOD said it was working to upgrade LGBTQ veterans’ discharges to honorable. However, it didn’t provide a timeline. Up until that point, veterans had to explicitly petition the government to have their discharge paperwork updated. The update process was described in the suit as “burdensome, opaque, expensive, and for many veterans virtually inaccessible.”

In 2011, the year “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was lifted, the memorandum doing so said that it was unnecessary to automatically update discharge paperwork for vets thrown out by the policy. However, it was only two years later when the Uniform Code of Military Justice was updated to remove its ban on sodomy.

Biden’s statement did not reveal a number of service members who would be affected by his order. According to the lawsuit, over 35,000 members of the U.S. military had been discharged under the ban on homosexuality between 1980 and 2011.

Biden’s clemency order falls on the 9th anniversary of the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States.

A U.S. magistrate judge ruled that LGBTQ veterans discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can proceed in their suit against the Department of Defense.

The suit, filed by five veterans, alleges that they faced discrimination because they were given other-than-honorable discharges from the military. The vets are asking the DOD to remove all references to sexual orientation from their discharge paperwork and for the discharges to be converted to honorable.

The plaintiffs say that the process to correct discharge paperwork is “burdensome, opaque, expensive, and for many veterans virtually inaccessible.” By having non-honorable discharges, LGBTQ vets are unable to reenlist. It’s also difficult for them to prove military service, the plaintiffs say, and they are blocked from veteran services via the Department of Veterans Affairs.

READ MORE: ‘So. Tell Me. Are You Transgender?’ — After DADT: Transgender Life In The US Military

“Because of the circumstances and language of my discharge, which served as a painful reminder of the trauma I experienced, I was never able to proudly say that I served my country,” said Steven Egland, a U.S. Army veteran and one of the plaintiffs.

“Following my Other Than Honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy, which was accompanied by terrible harassment on my ship, I experienced homelessness and shame,” Lilly Steffanides, another plaintiff and U.S. Navy Veteran, said. “After many years, I reconnected with the veteran community and do my best to act as a leader and supporter for other LGBTQ+ veterans like me. I am joining this lawsuit because I want justice for my LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, and I want my service to my country to be recognized as honorable.”

The DOD argued that the suit should be dismissed because the process for correcting records is neutral. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero disagreed, saying that by not remedying this type of discharge, it “gives rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory intent,” according to Bloomberg Law.

The DOD also argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely. Spero disagreed, ruling that the process of having to apply for their records to be corrected itself results in trauma, Bloomberg Law reported.

The suit says over 35,000 members of the U.S. military had been discharged for real or perceived homosexual behavior between 1980 and 2011, the year the homosexuality restriction was lifted. The original memorandum repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” said it was unnecessary to update the discharge paperwork for those thrown out of the military by the policy, according to Bloomberg Law.

In February 2024, the DOD said that it was working to upgrade LGBTQ vets’ discharges to honorable, according to DAV.org.