State of California is Now a Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Trump’s Transgender Military Ban, as Court Grants Attorney General Becerra’s Motion to Intervene

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

AG Becerra, NCLR, GLAD, and Equality California Note Significance of Court Granting the Opportunity to Consider Harm Being Inflicted Upon California’s 92,000 Transgender Residents

(CALIFORNIA, November 17, 2017)—In a significant development in the legal challenge to President Trump’s transgender military ban, last night the U.S. District Court for Central California granted Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s motion to intervene on behalf of the State of California in Stockman gegen Trump, a case brought by Equality California and seven individual plaintiffs challenging the ban.

“Our state is home to more than 130,000 active duty military personnel, in addition to more than 56,000 members of the National Guard and Reserves,” said Attorney General Becerra. “We are ready to get to work to defend the rights of transgender service members and those who seek to enlist in our armed forces. In California, we stand together against discrimination and inequality. We look forward to joining as a co-plaintiff in this critically important lawsuit to defend the rights of Californians against President Trump’s prejudicial and discriminatory agenda.”

“This is an important development in the fight to stop Trump’s transgender military ban for good,” said NCLR-Rechtsdirektorin Shannon Minter. “In taking this action, the court recognized the crucial perspective our state with the largest military population brings to bear on the serious question it is being asked to address regarding the harms of this ban. We are grateful to Attorney General Becerra for joining us in this critical case.”

“Today we take another step forward in beating back Trump’s reckless ban,” said Jennifer Levi, Leiterin des GLAD-Projekts für Transgender-Rechte. “It is incredibly significant to have the state of California – the most populous state in the nation — with us in this fight for service members, for those who wish to enlist, and for the stability and strength of the military.”

“We must stop Trump’s transgender military ban once and for all—too much is at stake for California, and for the nation,” said Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur. “I want to thank Attorney General Becerra for joining in this effort to stop the ban, which discriminates against our state’s residents, has no rationale for being in place, and makes us less safe. Today’s action by the court makes us even more confident that it will rule decisively against the administration and their reckless policy.”

NCLR and GLAD serve as co-counsel in the case, filed on behalf of Equality California (EQCA) members and seven individual plaintiffs. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the State of California in an effort to protect the State and its 92,000 transgender residents from what he called a “patently discriminatory federal policy,” a motion the court granted earlier today.

Attorney General Becerra’s motion to intervene was based on several arguments, including that implementing Trump’s transgender military ban would:

Impede the California National Guard’s ability to recruit and retain members that would protect the State’s natural resources in times of need,
Force California to violate anti-discrimination laws and discriminate against its own residents in staffing the California National Guard, and
Threaten the State’s ability to safeguard public institutions of higher learning from discrimination in ROTC programs.

The National Guard has been deployed more than 40,000 times since September 11, 2001, and there are currently 18,000 service members in the California National Guard. The Governor of California is the Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and relies on it in times of state emergencies, such as the recent massive wildfires across wine country. In 2014, The Williams Institute estimated that 6,700 transgender Americans were serving in the National Guard across the 50 states and found that transgender Americans were twice as likely to be serving or have served in our nation’s military.

Simultaneous to granting the motion to intervene, the court moved the previously scheduled November 20 hearing in Stockman gegen Trump to December 11, and requested additional briefing from the parties.

In addition to NCLR and GLAD, plaintiffs in Stockman gegen Trump are represented by Latham and Watkins LLP.

###

Gleichberechtigung Kalifornien is the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights organization. We bring the voices of LGBTQ people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve. www.EQCA.org

Durch strategische Prozessführung, politische Interessenvertretung und Aufklärung GLBTQ-Rechtsanwälte und -Verteidiger arbeitet in Neuengland und auf nationaler Ebene daran, eine gerechte Gesellschaft ohne Diskriminierung aufgrund von Geschlechtsidentität und -ausdruck, HIV-Status und sexueller Orientierung zu schaffen. www.GLAD.org

Das Nationale Zentrum für Lesbenrechte ist eine nationale Rechtsorganisation, die sich für die Förderung der Menschenrechte und Bürgerrechte der lesbischen, schwulen, bisexuellen und Transgender-Gemeinschaft durch Rechtsstreitigkeiten, politische Interessenvertretung und öffentliche Aufklärung einsetzt. www.NCLRights.org

Transgender Military Ban Arguments Today in Maryland Federal Court

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

(WASHINGTON, D.C., November 9, 2017)—Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland will hear oral arguments in Stone v. Trump, a case brought by the ACLU challenging Trump’s transgender military ban. On October 30, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) scored a major victory in Doe gegen Trump, the first federal lawsuit filed against the ban, by securing a nationwide preliminary injunction. NCLR and GLAD issued the following statement in support of today’s arguments in Stone v. Trump:

“Last week, we secured a nationwide injunction that halts Trump’s ban,” said NCLR-Rechtsdirektorin Shannon Minter. “Right now, every transgender service member is protected, and qualified transgender Americans who wish to enlist can do so as of January 1, 2018. But we know this battle is not over—every federal court that declares this ban unconstitutional moves us closer to a permanent end to this nightmare for our dedicated and courageous service members. To our colleagues at the ACLU today, we stand with you.”

“Veterans Day reminds us of the debt we owe to all who serve – and that includes transgender service members who have sacrificed for our country,” said Jennifer Levi, Direktorin des Transgender Rights Project von GLAD. “Today’s hearing in Stone v. Trump provides another welcome opportunity for the federal courts to reiterate what we know—that President Trump’s transgender military ban is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and contrary to military reason.”

In Doe gegen Trump, NCLR and GLAD argued that Trump’s ban, first announced in a series of tweets, is irresponsible and discriminatory because qualified and able transgender Americans looking to enlist have not been able to do so, and already-serving transgender service members have been demeaned and stigmatized, denied health care, and face uncertain futures including the loss of their professions, livelihoods, health care, and the post-military retirement they have worked hard to earn. And on October 30, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted NCLR and GLAD’s motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction.

NCLR und GLAD stehen seit der Einreichung im Mittelpunkt des Rechtsstreits gegen das Militärverbot von Präsident Trump Doe gegen Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9.

Die beiden Organisationen fungieren auch als Co-Anwälte in einer zweiten Klage gegen das Verbot. Stockman gegen Trump, gebracht von Gleichberechtigung Kalifornien. Mündliche Verhandlung in Stockman gegen Trump is scheduled for Tuesday, November 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

On June 4, 2018, the United States Supreme Court reversed the original ruling by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on grounds specific to Masterpiece Cakeshop and this case, finding that the commission had not acted impartially when originally considering the case. This ruling applies only to Masterpiece Cakeshop and does not broadly allow similar businesses to discriminate. In this decision, the Court affirmed the importance of nondiscrimination laws and the need to protect LGBT people from discrimination.

On December 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case. Listen Hier or read the transcript.

On October 30, 2017, GLAD and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) submitted an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to affirm the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in 2014 that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple.

This case involves David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, with Charlie’s mother, to order a cake for their wedding reception. The owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, informed them that he could not sell them a cake for their wedding because, based on his religious beliefs, he could only sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples.

David and Charlie filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that the bakery had violated Colorado nondiscrimination law. The bakery does not deny its policy to refuse service to gay couples seeking wedding cakes, and argues that it has a constitutional right to do so based on religious and free speech grounds.

The brief submitted by GLAD and NCLR states that nondiscrimination laws like Colorado’s “seek to assure citizens access to, and equal enjoyment of, the fundamental elements of full participation in civic life: access to homes, jobs, and public accommodations,” and that the exemption from anti-discrimination laws the bakery is seeking “will reach beyond the lives of LGBT persons to harm their children, families, and friends.”

The exemption the bakery seeks “would undermine the compelling goals of public accommodation laws, which were enacted based on the recognition that the discrimination they prohibit both deprives persons of their dignity and denies society the benefits of wide participation in political, economic and cultural life. We urge the Court to reject a rule that would constitutionalize a new right for commercial enterprises to discriminate against individuals because of their membership in a particular group.”

As a nation, we decided a long time ago that businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms, and that includes customers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Nobody should be turned away from a business, denied service, fired from their job, or evicted from their home simply because of who they are.

This case has been brought by the ACLU, and the amicus brief was written with assistance from Pierce Atwood LLP.

Der Blog

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

GLAD Staff Attorney Allison Wright was recently awarded the distinguished Lavender Rhino Award by the History Project, the only organization focused exclusively on documenting, preserving, and sharing the history of Boston’s LGBTQ communities. Named after one of the early symbols of the Gay Liberation Movement, the Lavender Rhino Award is presented to an emerging activist or organization whose impact on the LGBTQ community deserves recognition. Below, in an excerpt from her acceptance speech, Allison reflects on what this award means – both to her and the clients for whom she perseveres.

I am so grateful to the History Project and feel very honored to accept this prestigious award. But the truth is, I feel very undeserving of this award. I feel undeserving because there were many moments in the last five and a half years that I wanted to or did give up fighting for justice. I’ve struggled with being the only Black attorney at GLAD and living in one of the whitest parts of this country. There were times I wanted to quit and other times when I wasn’t sure if I wanted to be a lawyer at all.

My fatigue with working in this movement stems from resistance to change.

The LGBTQ movement is in desperate need of a makeover. We need more attorneys of color working in this movement. We need more people of color in leadership positions. We need to accept that racial and economic justice are LGBTQ issues, and most importantly, we need to be open to thinking differently about how we do our legal work with communities of color.

Unwillingness to make these changes is what will keep the LGBTQ movement from tackling some of our most urgent issues that strike at the heart of poverty and racism, which impacts so many LGBTQ people of color. Now more than ever, we need our white allies to speak out, act up, sometimes step aside to make room for people of color, and be open to change.

It is my hope for a more evolved LGBTQ movement, my love for my Black and Brown queer folks, especially my clients, and the unwavering support from my partner of the last five years – plus a little love from our four -year-old chihuahua, Sofie, that has kept me going over the last five and a half years.

I am still pursuing my dream of being a bad ass litigator because of my former client, a Black transgender 19-year-old woman who suffered chronic homelessness for most of her teenage life, and had the courage to stand up to a homeless shelter that denied her equal services.

I have not given up because my former client. an LGBTI activist from Uganda, risked his life and his safety to fight for his people.

I still fight because the mother of my Black transgender client knew that her daughter was being treated differently at school because of her race and gender.

I stay in this fight because my Latinx client whose personal struggles with addiction, homelessness, and poverty did not stop them from challenging a religiously-affiliated non-profit service organization’s differential treatment of queer people of color.

I accept this award for my clients whose resiliency and courage to stand up for themselves and others led to change not only for them but for others in similar circumstances.

By accepting this award, I am also making a promise to myself and to my queer POC family, that although I may get tired or angry, lost and dismayed, I will never stop advocating for us.

Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

In October of 2017 GLAD and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), along with 8 other LGBT and civil rights groups submitted an amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to grant cert in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital. The case involves the harassment and effective termination of Jameka Evans from her job as a hospital security guard, because she is a lesbian.

At issue is the interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and whether the prohibition against sex-based discrimination can be used to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual people against sexual orientation discrimination.

The brief submitted by GLAD, NCLR, and others states:

“In the absence of guidance from this Court, the courts of appeals have developed a fractured and unworkable approach to sex discrimination claims brought by gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees—one premised on a false distinction between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on failure to conform to sex stereotypes. As amici explain here, that distinction is fundamentally arbitrary and impossible to apply with any degree of consistency or fairness.”

The case has been brought by Lambda Legal, and the amicus brief was written by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. GLAD and NCLR submitted the brief along with the Anti-Defamation League, Family Equality Council, Freedom for All Americans, Human Rights Campaign, Legal Aid Society, the Mazzoni Center, OutServe-SLDN, Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders, and the Trevor Project.

On the Same Day, Trump Administration Lands Two Punches Against Trans Community: Pushing Courts to Ignore Transgender Military Ban and Rolling Back Federal Employment Discrimination Protections for Transgender Americans

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

Latest Discriminatory Actions, Taking Place Within Hours of One Another, Double Down on Efforts to Degrade LGBT Community

Washington, D.C. – The Trump administration today landed two punches against transgender Americans, first asking the courts to dismiss a legal challenge to President Trump’s ban on military service by transgender people, and then separately rolling back important employment discrimination protections for transgender workers across the country. Taken together, the two actions reinforce an agenda focused on promoting discrimination against some of the nation’s most vulnerable communities, and underscore the importance of the judiciary now more than ever – as one of the only backstops to an administration committed to dismantling rights and protections for LGBT people. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) spoke out against the Department of Justice’s first punch against transgender Americans, following DOJ’s late-night response yesterday in Doe gegen Trump, the first of four cases filed to stop President Trump’s transgender military ban, on which NCLR and GLAD are co-counsel. In the government’s Anträge auf Abweisung der Klage und Ablehnung des Antrags der Kläger auf einstweilige Verfügung, the Trump administration falsely claimed transgender individuals have not yet suffered harm from this policy. GLAD and NCLR, who are set to respond to the government’s motions in court later this month, reiterated the compelling need to put an immediate halt to the ban: transgender Americans seeking to enlist are not able to do so, and currently-serving transgender servicemembers have been demeaned and stigmatized, denied health care, and are facing the loss of their professions, livelihoods, health care, and the post-military retirement they have worked hard to earn. “The government’s response reads like pure fiction,” said Jennifer Levi, Direktorin des Transgender Rights Project von GLAD. “It states a fantasy that the President’s announcement of a ban on military service for transgender people has changed nothing. That’s simply not true. Every day this reckless ban stays in place, our military strength is diminished and our country is less safe for it. We are optimistic the Court will see through this smokescreen and halt the ban.” “The President’s attack on transgender service members who have dedicated their lives to serving our country is unconscionable. Rather than even attempting to defend it, the DOJ is asking the court to turn a blind eye to the devastation the President has caused in the lives of real people and real families,” said Shannon Minter, Rechtsdirektorin des NCLR. “Because of the President’s ban, smart, dedicated, and idealistic young people like our plaintiffs Regan Kibby and Dylan Kohere are barred from fulfilling their dreams of military service. And transgender people who are already serving have been told that their skills, training, and years of dedicated service are not valued. The ban has left them scrambling to make new plans for their futures, just as it has undermined our nation’s security. This is the exact opposite of how military policy should be made.” Just hours following DOJ’s response (which was filed at nearly midnight with the courts), news reports surfaced revealing DOJ’s reversing of policy that protects transgender workers from discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as outlined in a memo circulated internally at the Department yesterday. “The administration’s focus on attacking and degrading transgender people is reaching a fever pitch,” said Levi. “Today’s developments illuminate just how far-reaching and relentless this unprecedented effort to roll back basic protections for LGBT people will be.” Minter added, “Every day, it becomes more clear that the courts are one of the few checks on this accelerating agenda of blatant discrimination, which is why as Trump doubles down on his attack of LGBT people, we are doubling down on our legal strategy.” NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging Trump’s military ban since filing Doe gegen Trump on August 9 on behalf of five transgender servicemembers. In the weeks since, NCLR and GLAD filed an August 31 motion In Damhirschkuh asking the court to immediately block the president’s policy and added two named plaintiffs who have had their plans for a career in military service thwarted by the ban – Regan Kibby, a Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy and Dylan Kohere, a first-year student at University of New Haven in West Haven, Connecticut and member of the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) program. The two organizations are also co-counsel in a second suit challenging the ban, Stockman gegen Trump, brought by Equality California. Former and current military leaders strongly oppose the ban. Just last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, Jr. said that anyone who meets the high standards of the military should be able to serve. Six former military leaders have lent their voices in Doe gegen Trump and other legal cases against the ban, including former Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning, the only person to hold senior leadership roles in each of the three military departments and who led the Army during the year-long review of the military’s policy toward transgender servicemembers, and retired Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen. Some of the nation’s most senior military leaders have expressed their strong concern about the negative effects of Trump’s ban on military readiness, national security, and morale. The government’s perpetuation of the false narrative that no one is being harmed by this ban underscores the need for the court to intervene and provide emergency relief now.

Stockman gegen Trump

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

GLAD und NCLR sind Co-Counsel in Gleichberechtigung KalifornienKlage gegen das Transgender-Militärverbot, Stockman gegen Trump. Equality California ist Kläger in der Klage zusammen mit sieben einzelnen Klägern, die derzeit im Dienst sind oder Schritte unternommen haben, um sich einschreiben zu lassen.

Die drei Organisationen reichten eine Antrag auf einstweilige Verfügung am 2. Oktober 2017 vor dem US-Bezirksgericht für Zentralkalifornien, um das Verbot sofort aufzuheben und „weiteren irreparablen Schaden“ für Transgender-Amerikaner zu verhindern, die derzeit beim Militär dienen oder von der Einberufung ausgeschlossen wurden. GLAD und NCLR zuvor einen Antrag auf einstweilige Verfügung beim US-Bezirksgericht für den District of Columbia in Doe gegen Trump, die erste von vier landesweiten Klagen, die gegen das Transgender-Militärverbot der Trump-Regierung eingereicht wurden.

Das Justizministerium (DOJ) reichte einen Antrag auf Abweisung und einen Antrag gegen die Nothilfe ein. Stockman gegen Trump am 23. Oktober. GLAD, EQCA und NCLR kritisierten die Reaktion der Regierung scharf, weil sie den Schaden ignoriert, den diese gefährliche Politik den Militärangehörigen unseres Landes und Transgender-Personen zufügt, die sich verpflichten möchten, es aber nicht können. Mehr lesen.

Die Kläger reichten am 6. November eine Antwort auf den Antrag der Regierung auf Klageabweisung ein. Eine Anhörung wurde anberaumt in Stockman gegen Trump am 20. November.

Am 25. April 2018 haben GLAD und NCLR unseren Widerspruch eingelegt auf einen Antrag der Trump-Pence-Administration, die landesweite einstweilige Verfügung aufzuheben, die der US-Bezirksrichter Jesus G. Bernal am 22. Dezember 2017 erlassen hatte.

Am 18. September 2018, Richter Bernal bestritten den Antrag der Regierung auf Aufhebung der bundesweiten einstweiligen Verfügung.

Siehe auch www.notransmilitaryban.org für die neuesten Informationen.

LISTE DER FALLDOKUMENTE

Beschluss zur Ablehnung des Antrags der Regierung auf Aufhebung der einstweiligen Verfügung, 9/18/18

Slip

Einreichung 6. November 2017

Originale unterstützende Erklärungen

Kläger:

Ehemalige hochrangige Militärführer:

Medizinischer Experte:

Erklärung von George Richard Brown, MD

Reaktion der Regierung

Der Blog

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

Like you, I am still reeling from the vile displays of racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and hate by white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville this weekend.

GLAD is fighting back. But we won’t be fighting alone. And neither will you.

GLAD’s strategic plan, Justice 2020, prioritizes racial and economic equality. And we are proud to be part of a movement of civil rights organizations committed to fighting for true justice for all.

The GLAD staff and I compiled this short list of partner organizations doing important work specifically combating racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia. We welcome you to take a look and find out what you can do to counter the hate we continue to witness from around the country.

The Equal Justice Initiative is committed to ending mass incarceration and excessive punishment in the United States, to challenging racial and economic injustice, and to protecting basic human rights for the most vulnerable people in American society.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) works to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) works to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

Define American is a non-profit media and culture organization that uses the power of story to transcend politics and shift the conversation about immigrants, identity, and citizenship in a changing America.

Indivisible provides resources you can use to organize in your own community – and can help you find an event or rally near you this week.

GLAD firmly believes that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. This is not normal. This cannot be who we become. We must denounce extremism immediately, explicitly and collectively. We must stand as one justice movement.

Together, we will resist hate not only in Charlottesville, but everywhere it rears its ugly head.

Doe gegen Trump

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

Erfolg: Am 25. Januar 2021 erließ Präsident Biden eine Durchführungsverordnung zur Aufhebung des Verbots des Militärdienstes für Transgender. Seit die scheidende Regierung im April 2019 mit der Durchsetzung des Verbots begann, wurde engagierten Transgender-Soldaten mit Entlassung gedroht, und qualifizierten Transgender-Amerikanern wurde der Eintritt in die Armee, die Teilnahme am ROTC und der Besuch von Militärakademien untersagt. Die vollständige Erklärung finden Sie unter notransmilitaryban.org.

Update 24. August 2018 – Bundesbezirksrichterin Colleen Kollar-Kotelly heute erließ eine Entscheidung Anordnung an die Trump-Administration, Informationen über ihre Entscheidung offenzulegen, ansonsten qualifizierte Transgender-Truppen vom Militärdienst auszuschließen in Doe gegen Trump, der Fall von GLAD und NCLR, in dem das Transgender-Militärverbot der Trump-Regierung angefochten wird.

Richterin Kollar-Kotelly lehnte zudem die Anträge beider Parteien auf eine vollständige Beilegung des Falles ab. In ihrem Urteil erklärte Richterin Kollar-Kotelly, die Regierung habe sich zu Unrecht geweigert, Dokumente im Zusammenhang mit ihrer Entscheidung vorzulegen, die bestehende Politik aufzuheben und Transgender-Personen vom Militärdienst auszuschließen. Mehr lesen

Update 6. August 2018 – Richterin Colleen Kollar-Kotelly lehnte heute ab der Antrag der Trump-Administration, die Klage von NCLR und GLAD abzuweisen Doe gegen Trump, die erste Klage gegen das von Trump und Pence angeordnete Transgender-Militärverbot und die erste, die eine einstweilige Verfügung erwirkte, die das Inkrafttreten des Verbots während der Gerichtsverhandlung verhindert. Richterin Kollar-Kotelly lehnte zudem den Antrag der Trump-Regierung ab, die einstweilige Verfügung aufzuheben. Dies hätte die Karrieren fast aller der Tausenden derzeit dienenden Transgender-Soldaten gefährdet und der Trump-Regierung ermöglicht, mit der Umsetzung des Verbots zu beginnen. Über den Antrag der Kläger auf ein summarisches Urteil, das den Fall durch ein endgültiges Urteil beilegen würde, das das Verbot für verfassungswidrig und unumsetzbar erklärt, hat Richterin Kollar-Kotelly noch nicht entschieden. Mehr lesen

Update 22. Juni 2018 – GLAD und NCLR eingereicht unsere Antwort zur Unterstützung unseres Gegenantrags auf summarisches Urteil In Doe gegen TrumpSollte Richterin Kollar-Kotelly den Klägern Recht geben, würde diese Entscheidung das von Trump und Pence angeordnete Verbot der Transgender-Militärdienste dauerhaft verhindern. Die heutige Klage widerlegt den Versuch der Regierung, „die Realität zu ignorieren und den Mattis-Plan als etwas anderes darzustellen, als er eindeutig ist: als einen Plan, der sicherstellen soll, dass keine Transgender-Personen ‚in irgendeiner Funktion‘ in den Streitkräften unseres Landes dienen.“ Die Antwort der Kläger ist die letzte in einer Reihe von Einreichungen Dies muss geschehen, bevor Richterin Kollar-Kotelly entscheiden kann, ob sie eine dauerhafte Entscheidung zur Aufhebung des Verbots erlassen kann.

Mehr lesen

Update 11. Mai 2018 – Transgender-Militärverbotskläger in Doe gegen Trump reichte eine Gegenantrag auf summarisches Urteil vor dem US-Bezirksgericht für den District of Columbia. Der Antrag der Kläger behauptet, dass unbestrittene Tatsachen zeigen, dass das Verbot, einschließlich der Umsetzungsrichtlinie von Mattis vom 23. März, gegen ihre Rechte auf Gleichbehandlung und ein ordentliches Gerichtsverfahren verstößt und dass das Gericht eine dauerhafte Feststellungsklage und eine Unterlassungsklage erlassen sollte, um zu verhindern, dass das Trump-Pence-Verbot jemals umgesetzt wird.

Die Kläger reichten auch separate Anträge ein Widersetzung der Anträge der Verwaltung auf Abweisung des Falls und Aufhebung der bundesweiten einstweiligen Verfügung herausgegeben am 30. Oktober 2017 von Bezirksrichterin Colleen Kollar-Kotelly vom US-Bezirksgericht für den District of Columbia.

Unterstützende Erklärungen eingereicht am 11. Mai 2018:

Erklärung von Josh Safer, MD, FACP, Präsident der United States Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH)

Erklärung von George R. Brown, MD, DFAPA

Erklärung von Brad Carson, ehemaliger stellvertretender Verteidigungsminister für Personal und Einsatzbereitschaft

Erklärung von Lauren Milgroomzur Unterstützung der Erklärung unbestrittener wesentlicher Tatsachen

Hauptargumente aus den Klageschriften der Kläger vom 11. Mai 2018:

Das von Trump und Pence beschlossene Verbot für Transgender-Militärangehörige schadet der militärischen Einsatzbereitschaft, indem es qualifizierte Transgender-Militärangehörige irrational ausschließt.
Der „Mattis-Plan“ der Trump-Regierung vom 23. März schließt Transgender-Personen aufgrund ihres Transgender-Status und nicht aufgrund medizinischer Gründe vom Dienst aus.
Der „Mattis-Plan“ ist dasselbe kategorische Verbot des Militärdienstes für Transgender, das Präsident Trump getwittert hat, trotz einer angeblichen „Ausnahme“ für Transgender, die in ihrem Geburtsgeschlecht dienen. So wie eine Regelung, die Muslime nur dann zum Militärdienst verpflichtet, wenn sie ihrem Glauben abschwören, ein Verbot des Militärdienstes für Muslime wäre, so ist eine Regelung, die Transgender zum Militärdienst in ihrem Geburtsgeschlecht verpflichtet, ein Verbot des Militärdienstes für Transgender. Dies ähnelt auch dem früheren, gescheiterten und von Gerichten einstimmig zurückgewiesenen Argument, Gesetze, die die Ehe auf Paare aus Mann und Frau beschränken, diskriminierten Homosexuelle nicht, da Homosexuelle eine Person des anderen Geschlechts heiraten könnten.
Aus den Dokumenten der Trump-Regierung, die durch Offenlegung von Beweismitteln erlangt wurden, geht hervor, dass der Prozess, der zum „Mattis-Plan“ führte, gezielt darauf abzielte, eine Politik zu entwickeln, die mit Trumps vollständigem Verbot von Transgender-Diensten vereinbar ist. Anstatt einen triftigen Grund für eine unterschiedliche Behandlung von Transgender-Personen zu liefern, stützt sich der Plan auf Geschlechterstereotype und pauschale Verallgemeinerungen über die Rolle und Fähigkeiten von Transgender-Personen.
Qualifizierte, geeignete Kandidaten aufgrund pauschaler Gruppenzugehörigkeiten vom Militärdienst auszuschließen, ist irrational. So sind Depressionen, Angstzustände und Selbstmord unter Weißen häufiger als unter Schwarzen, obwohl das Militär sie nicht vom Militärdienst ausschließt. Und Frauen leiden doppelt so häufig an Angststörungen wie Männer, obwohl das Militär sie nicht vom Militärdienst ausschließt.
Die Argumente der Angeklagten zum Zusammenhalt der Einheit laufen auf die Behauptung hinaus, dass „Transgender-Personen allein durch ihre Existenz geschlechtsspezifische Standards untergraben“. Wenn „diese Behauptung ausreichen würde, um Transgender-Personen vom Militärdienst auszuschließen, würde sie auch ihren Ausschluss von allen Institutionen rechtfertigen, die geschlechtsspezifische Kriterien für ihre Einrichtungen anwenden, darunter Schulen, Arbeitsplätze, öffentliche Einrichtungen und mehr“ – eine Behauptung, die Gerichte im ganzen Land wiederholt zurückgewiesen haben.

Eine direkte Verbindung von den Tweets von Präsident Trump zum „Mattis-Plan“ zur Umsetzung des Verbots

(Seite aus der Erklärung von Unbestrittene wesentliche Fakten)

Lesen Sie mehr zu dieser Einreichung. (mehr …)

Der Blog

Heim » National/Bundesweit » Page 42

Donald Trump’s disgraceful tweets this week threatening to ban transgender people from military service have me hopping mad.

How dare he disparage brave men and women who courageously step forward to defend this country?

I want you to know: GLAD will defend transgender service members targeted by this administration for unfair treatment.

We are working right now with our partners at NCLR to explore all legal options and intend to act swiftly. But we need to hear from you now.

If you or someone you know are or could be affected by a change in military policy, contact us today.

We won’t let Trump get away with disrespecting the thousands of transgender people who serve this nation with honor and distinction.

These are rough times. Today, our family and friends in uniform are under attack. Who knows who will be next? But GLAD is in this fight for the long haul.

Together we will resist any attack this administration attempts on our community.