New Trans Military Ban Filing from NCLR, GLAD Would Accelerate Final Court Ruling to Permanently Stop the Trump-Pence Ban

GLAD says, “The government’s own documents, newly obtained by discovery, show the March 23 ‘Mattis Plan’ is the same unconstitutional, categorical ban… President Trump announced on Twitter”

NCLR says, “Thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our ظبية plaintiffs has in fact served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq. The ban erodes military readiness”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Transgender military ban plaintiffs in دو ضد ترامب, the first lawsuit to challenge the Trump-Pence ban, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment last night in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ motion asserts that undisputed facts show the ban, including the March 23 Mattis implementation plan, violates their Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and that the court should provide permanent declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Trump-Pence ban from ever being implemented.

The plaintiffs’ motion describes the ban as the only military “policy that excludes people from military service based on their membership in a class rather than on an individual’s fitness to serve” and calls out that “no other military policy excludes a class of persons from an equal opportunity to enlist or serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.”’ It also characterizes the March 23 “Mattis Plan” and panel report as “most notable for what it fails to do”: it does not and could not show that transgender people are not capable of meeting existing military standards for service. Instead, the “Mattis Plan” and panel report makes sweeping generalizations, relying on false stereotypes about mental health and deployability.

Plaintiffs also filed a separate motion last night opposing the administration’s motions to dismiss the case and to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction issued October 30, 2017 by District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

“The government’s own documents, newly obtained by discovery, show the March 23 ‘Mattis Plan’ is the same unconstitutional, categorical ban of all transgender people from military service that President Trump announced on Twitter,” said Jennifer Levi, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director. “There is no reason to treat transgender people so unfairly. The Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to be held to the same standards applied to all other servicemembers.”

“By the military’s own count, thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our ظبية plaintiffs has in fact served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq,” said Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director. “The ban erodes military readiness and would be the only military policy to exclude otherwise qualified people for who they are rather than their fitness to serve.”

Arguments from the plaintiffs’ filings:

  • The Trump-Pence transgender military ban harms military readiness by irrationally excluding qualified transgender servicemembers.
  • Tthe Trump administration’s March 23 “Mattis Plan” excludes transgender people from service based on their transgender status, rather than on any medical basis.
  • The “Mattis Plan” is the same categorical ban on trans service tweeted by President Trump despite its alleged “exception” for transgender people who serve in their birth sex. Just as a policy requiring Muslims to serve in the military only if they renounce their faith would be a ban on military service by Muslims, a policy requiring transgender individuals to serve in their birth sex is a ban on military service by transgender people. It is also similar to the earlier failed argument, uniformly rejected by courts, that laws limiting marriage only to male-female couples did not discriminate against gay people because a gay person could marry a person of the opposite sex.
  • The Trump administration’s own documents, obtained through discovery, show that that the process leading to the “Mattis Plan” was specifically undertaken to produce a policy consistent with Trump’s complete ban on transgender service. Rather than providing a valid reason to treat transgender people differently, the plan relies on gender stereotypes and sweeping generalizations about the roles and capabilities of transgender people.
  • Excluding qualified, fit candidates from service based on sweeping group-based generalizations is irrational. For example, depression, anxiety, and suicide are more common among white people than black people, but the military does not bar white people from service. And women are twice as likely as men to suffer from anxiety disorders, but the military does not exclude women from service.
  • Defendants’ unit cohesion arguments boil down to a claim that, “simply by existing as such, transgender people undermine sex-based standards.” If “that claim were sufficient to justify barring transgender people from military service, it would also justify their exclusion from any, and all, institutions that maintain sex-based criteria for facilities, including schools, workplaces, public accommodations, and beyond”—something courts across the country have repeatedly dismissed.

With this filing, both the Trump administration and دو ضد ترامب transgender military ban plaintiffs have now indicated to the court there are no factual disputes in this case that would need to be resolved by a trial. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court would permanently block the Trump-Pence transgender military ban from taking effect.

خلفية

 

30 يونيو 2016:اعتمدت وزارة الدفاع الأمريكية سياسة تسمح للأشخاص المتحولين جنسياً بالخدمة في الجيش بناءً على مراجعة أجرتها وزارة الدفاع لمدة عامين تقريبًا والتي خلصت إلى أنه لا يوجد سبب وجيه لاستبعاد الأفراد المؤهلين من الخدمة العسكرية لمجرد أنهم متحولون جنسياً.

26 يوليو 2017:غرد الرئيس ترامب قائلاً إن "حكومة الولايات المتحدة لن تقبل أو تسمح للأفراد المتحولين جنسياً بالخدمة بأي شكل من الأشكال في الجيش الأمريكي".

9 أغسطس 2017:تم تقديم NCLR و GLAD دو ضد ترامب، وهي أول دعوى قضائية يتم رفعها لوقف الحظر، حيث تطعن في دستوريته، وتطالب المحكمة بإصدار أمر قضائي أولي على مستوى البلاد لمنعه من الدخول حيز التنفيذ أثناء نظر القضية في المحكمة.

25 أغسطس 2017أصدر الرئيس ترامب مذكرة يأمر فيها وزير الدفاع جيمس ماتيس بتقديم "خطة لتنفيذ" الحظر بحلول 21 فبراير 2018. وقد سلم الوزير ماتيس هذه (خطة ماتيس وتقرير اللجنة) إلى الرئيس ترامب في 22 فبراير 2018.

30 أكتوبر 2017:حكمت المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية لمقاطعة كولومبيا بأن دو ضد ترامب وقد أثبت المدعون احتمال نجاح دعواهم بأن حظر الرئيس ترامب ينتهك مبدأ الحماية المتساوية، وأن المدعين سوف يتضررون بشكل لا يمكن إصلاحه في حالة عدم صدور أمر قضائي أولي بوقف الحظر، وأن المصلحة العامة وتوازن الصعوبات ترجح لصالح منح الإغاثة عن طريق الأمر القضائي ووقف الحظر مؤقتًا أثناء نظر المحكمة في القضية.

23 مارس 2018:الرئيس ترامب يقبل "خطة ماتيس" ويصدر مذكرة "ألغى" فيها مذكرته الصادرة في 25 أغسطس.

20 أبريل 2018:قدم المدعى عليهم التماسًا لحل الأمر القضائي الأولي الذي صدر في 30 أكتوبر على مستوى البلاد والذي يحظر على المتحولين جنسياً الخدمة العسكرية والذي أصدرته المحكمة الجزئية الأمريكية لمقاطعة كولومبيا؛ وطلبًا لرفض الشكوى المعدلة الثانية للمدّعين؛ وطلبًا للحصول على حكم موجز.

11 مايو 2018:يقدم المدعون طلباتهم المتبادلة للحصول على حكم موجز، بالإضافة إلى طلبات معارضة لطلبات المدعى عليه بحل الأمر القضائي ورفض شكوى المدعين.

كانت اللجنة الوطنية لحقوق الإنسان ومنظمة GLAD في قلب المعركة القانونية التي تتحدى حظر ترامب وبنس العسكري للمتحولين جنسياً منذ تقديمهما دو ضد ترامب، وهي الأولى من بين أربع قضايا رفعت ضد الحظر، في 9 أغسطس/آب 2017.