![]() ![]() The ruling effectively reinstated the policies established prior to President Trump's tweets announcing the ban, namely the retention and accession policies for transgender personnel that were effective on June 30, 2017. In the ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case was "perhaps compelling in the abstract, wither away under scrutiny". Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction on October 30, 2017. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Memorandum Opinion, Jane Doe v. The Court finds that a number of factors-including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President's announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself-strongly suggest that Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious. Plaintiffs claim that the President's directives cannot survive such scrutiny because they are not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally. As a form of government action that classifies people based on their gender identity, and disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals, the President's directives are subject to a fairly searching form of scrutiny. The Court holds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim. In the brief, the states asserted that "othing about being transgender inhibits a person’s ability to serve in the military or otherwise contribute to society" and that President Trump's ban was "apparently announced without any consultation with top military leaders". Also on October 16, the attorney generals of fifteen states and the District of Columbia, led by Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, filed an amicus brief supporting the suit. In response, the plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 16, stating the Interim Guidance issued by Secretary Mattis explicitly prohibited accession of transgender individuals and provided guidance for medical treatment that contradicted existing policy. The lead author of the Justice Department's motion, Ryan Bradley Parker, previously defended the military's ban on gay soldiers. Trump and to oppose the application for a preliminary injunction, arguing instead "that challenge is premature several times over" and that Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance, issued on September 14, 2017, protects currently-serving transgender personnel from involuntary discharge or denial of reenlistment. On October 4, the United States Department of Justice Civil Division filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Jane Doe v. Also on August 31, the plaintiffs applied for a preliminary injunction on the proposed ban, stating "it is unconstitutional" and that "Plaintiffs have suffered serious and irreparable harms that will continue absent this Court's intervention." On August 31, 2017, three former secretaries of military services, Eric Fanning (Army), Ray Mabus (Navy), and Deborah Lee James (Air Force), submitted declarations in support of the plaintiffs, and three plaintiffs were added to the lawsuit. #Public announcement john doe download updatePlease help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. The lawsuit was amended to add one more anonymous plaintiff and two named plaintiffs in late August 2017. The suit was filed on the behalf of five anonymous transgender service members by two major LGBT-rights organizations, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ![]() Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019. ![]() The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on Augand decided Januin the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |