Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Remains Blocked Despite New Decision Dissolving One of Four Nationwide Preliminary Injunctions

Decision is “a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country”; plaintiffs vow to continue to fight

Washington, DC—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today ruled against transgender service members, lifting the district court’s order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing its ban on military service by transgender people in Doe contre Trump.

Despite today’s decision, three nationwide preliminary injunctions halting the ban remain in effect blocking the ban while the cases proceed in the federal district courts. In addition, as the D.C. Circuit noted “today’s decision is not a final determination on the merits,” and the case will continue in the district court.

“Today’s ruling is a devastating slap in the face to transgender service members who have proved their fitness to serve and their dedication to this country,” said Shannon Minter, directrice juridique du NCLR. “We will keep fighting this cruel and irrational policy, which serves no purpose other than to weaken the military and punish transgender service members for their patriotism and service.”

“Today’s decision is based on the absurd idea that forcing transgender people to suppress who they are in order to serve is not a ban,” said Jennifer Levi, directrice du projet GLAD sur les droits des transgenres. “It ignores the reality of transgender people’s lives, with devastating consequences, and rests on a complete failure to understand who transgender people are. It is also destabilizing to the military to so dramatically reverse a policy that has been in place for over 2 years that senior military officials acknowledge has operated with no problems.”

Biche, the first legal challenge filed in opposition to Trump’s transgender military ban, was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and is one of their two lawsuits challenging the ban.

For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website outlining the history and status of the Trump-Pence transgender military ban at https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

NCLR et GLAD sont au centre de la bataille juridique contestant l'interdiction militaire des transgenres de Trump-Pence depuis le dépôt de la plainte. Doe c. Trump, la première des quatre affaires déposées contre l'interdiction, le 9 août 2017.

###

Par le biais de litiges stratégiques, de défense des politiques publiques et d’éducation, Défenseurs juridiques et avocats GLBTQ travaille en Nouvelle-Angleterre et à l'échelle nationale pour créer une société juste, exempte de discrimination fondée sur l'identité et l'expression de genre, le statut VIH et l'orientation sexuelle. www.GLAD.org

Le Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes (NCLR) was the first national LGBTQ legal organization founded by women and brings a fierce, longstanding commitment to racial and economic justice and our community’s most vulnerable. Since 1977, we have been at the forefront of advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ people and their families through impact litigation, public policy, and public education. Decades ago, NCLR launched the first LGBTQ Immigration Project, Transgender Rights Project, Youth Project, Elder Law Project, and began working to end conversion therapy through what is now our Born Perfect campaign. www.nclrights.org

Trump Asks SCOTUS to Intervene Now and Allow Implementation of His Trans Military Ban

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Intervene Now and Implement the Transgender Military Ban—Even Though Four Federal Courts Have Blocked It
Attempting to leap frog the ordinary appeals process, the Trump Administration quietly files petitions for cert before judgment over holiday weekend

Washington, DC—The Trump Administration filed petitions for cert before judgment today in three cases challenging Trump’s transgender military ban: Doe v. Trump, Stockman v. Trump, et Karnoski v. Trump. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who represent plaintiffs in both Biche et Stockman and were the first to challenge the ban, characterized the filing as an unusual attempt by the administration to bypass the standard appeals process.

There are four lawsuits in total challenging the transgender military ban, and all four federal courts to hear these cases have issued preliminary injunctions halting the ban from moving forward while the case is being heard in court. In issuing the preliminary injunctions, the courts each determined that the plaintiffs challenging the ban—who include current servicemembers, ROTC and military academy students and enlistees—would ultimately prevail. If the Supreme Court were to grant the administration’s request, it would consider this term whether to lift the injunction while the cases proceed in the lower courts. Excluding transgender people who meet military standards undermines readiness and would dramatically upend the lives and families of thousands of trans servicemembers and enlistees, and disrupt the military as a whole.

“There is no urgency here and no reason for the Court to weigh in at this juncture,” said Jennifer Levi, directrice du projet GLAD sur les droits des transgenres. “The injunctions preserve the status quo of the open service policy that was thoroughly vetted by the military itself and has been in place now for more than two years. This is simply one more attempt by a reckless Trump administration to push through a discriminatory policy. The policy flies in the face of military research and dozens of top military experts.”

“The great majority of people in this country recognize that transgender people who can meet the same standards as others should have an equal opportunity to serve,” said Shannon Minter, directrice juridique du NCLR. Allowing President Trump’s ban to be implemented would upend thousands of lives and weaken our Armed Forces.”

“As Americans come together and give thanks for the sacrifices made by our brave servicemembers and their families, the Trump-Pence Administration is focused on undermining our military by tripling down on this discriminatory ban,” said Rick Zbur, Executive Director of Equality California which brought the Stockman case on behalf its members. “There are thousands of transgender service members bravely serving the nation with distinction. The Administration ought to be thanking them for their service—not trying to score political points by purging them from our military.”

Oral argument in Doe c. Trump is currently scheduled to be held on December 10 in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pour plus d'informations, consultez le site Web du NCLR et du GLAD décrivant l'historique et le statut de l'interdiction militaire des transgenres de Trump-Pence. https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

ARRIÈRE-PLAN

30 juin 2016:Le ministère de la Défense des États-Unis (DOD) a adopté une politique autorisant les personnes transgenres à servir dans l'armée sur la base d'un examen du DOD de près de deux ans déterminant qu'il n'y avait aucune raison valable d'exclure du service militaire le personnel qualifié simplement parce qu'il est transgenre.

26 juillet 2017:Le président Trump a tweeté que « le gouvernement des États-Unis n’acceptera ni ne permettra aux personnes transgenres de servir à quelque titre que ce soit dans l’armée américaine ».

9 août 2017:NCLR et GLAD déposés Doe c. Trump, la première action en justice intentée pour mettre fin à l'interdiction, contestant sa constitutionnalité et demandant au tribunal d'émettre une injonction préliminaire à l'échelle nationale pour l'empêcher de prendre effet pendant que l'affaire est entendue au tribunal.

25 août 2017:Le président Trump a publié un mémorandum ordonnant au secrétaire à la Défense James Mattis de soumettre « un plan de mise en œuvre » de l’interdiction avant le 21 février 2018. Le secrétaire Mattis a remis ce document (le « plan Mattis » et le rapport du panel) au président Trump le 22 février 2018.

30 octobre 2017:Le tribunal de district des États-Unis pour le district de Columbia a statué que Doe c. Trump Les plaignants avaient établi une probabilité de succès dans leur réclamation selon laquelle l'interdiction du président Trump viole l'égalité de protection, que les plaignants subiraient un préjudice irréparable sans une injonction préliminaire pour mettre fin à l'interdiction, et que l'intérêt public et l'équilibre des difficultés pesaient en faveur de l'octroi d'une injonction et de la suspension temporaire de l'interdiction pendant que l'affaire est entendue par le tribunal.

23 mars 2018:Le président Trump accepte le « Plan Mattis » et publie un mémorandum dans lequel il « révoque » son mémorandum du 25 août.

20 avril 2018:Les défendeurs déposent une requête visant à dissoudre l'injonction préliminaire nationale du 30 octobre interdisant l'interdiction militaire des transgenres émise par le tribunal de district américain du district de Columbia ; une requête visant à rejeter la deuxième plainte modifiée des plaignants ; et une requête en jugement sommaire.

11 mai 2018:Les plaignants déposent leur requête reconventionnelle en jugement sommaire, ainsi que des requêtes en opposition aux requêtes du défendeur visant à dissoudre l'injonction et à rejeter la plainte des plaignants.

6 août 2018 : Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction.

27 août 2018:Les défendeurs ont déposé un avis d'appel auprès de la Cour d'appel du circuit de DC contre le rejet par le juge Kollar-Kotelly de leur requête visant à dissoudre l'injonction préliminaire empêchant l'application de l'interdiction militaire des transgenres.

21 septembre 2018 : Les défendeurs-appelants ont déposé leur mémoire d'ouverture auprès de la Cour d'appel du circuit de DC.

22 octobre 2018:Les plaignants-intimés ont déposé leur opposition à l'appel des défendeurs, demandant à la Cour d'appel du circuit de DC de laisser en place l'injonction préliminaire bloquant l'application de l'interdiction militaire des transgenres.

October 29, 2018: A wide array of former military leaders, veterans’ and civil rights organizations, women’s groups, military scholars and historians, and states went on record opposing President Trump’s ongoing efforts to exclude transgender people from military service, in thirteen friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

###

Égalité Californie est la plus grande organisation de défense des droits civiques LGBTQ du pays. Nous portons la voix des personnes LGBTQ et de leurs alliés auprès des institutions de pouvoir en Californie et aux États-Unis, et nous nous efforçons de créer un monde sain, juste et pleinement égalitaire pour toutes les personnes LGBTQ. Nous promouvons les droits civiques et la justice sociale en inspirant, en défendant et en mobilisant au sein d'un mouvement inclusif qui œuvre sans relâche pour ceux que nous servons. www.EQCA.org

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

GLAD AIDS Law Project Director Ben Klein reflects on what it was like to receive the phone call that meant he would be arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case with life-changing implications for people living with HIV and AIDS

It was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving in November 1997, a quiet day at work. Gary Buseck, in his third week as GLAD’s new Executive Director, had decided to close the office at 3:00p.m.. Gary, other GLAD staff, and I were sitting in the conference room when the receptionist walked in and dropped this on me: “Ben, the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court is on the phone for you.”

Now a 24-year GLAD veteran, I considered myself still new then at the three-year mark and a call like this is never an ordinary occurrence.

The Supreme Court grants cert and accepts and hears only about 80 cases each year. Only one other GLAD case – involving the right of an Irish-American LGBT group to march in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade – had gone all the way up to the Supreme Court. I thought my chances of arguing a case before the Court were about the same as my rounding the bases at Fenway Park.

I picked up the phone right there in the conference room, too nervous to take the time to get back to my office. I knew what I was going to hear. And I understood the consequences. I’ll admit I was shaking a bit. The clerk said, “Mr. Klein, I want to inform you that the Court has granted cert in the case Bragdon c. Abbott.” At that pre-Twitter, pre-cell phone moment, only counsel and the reporters at the Court knew.

Dans Bragdon, we represented Sidney Abbott, a Maine woman who had been refused treatment by Bangor, Maine dentist Dr. Randon Bragdon because she was living with HIV. We argued that the fairly new Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA, passed in 1990) protected Sidney and all other people with HIV from discrimination and that dentists and doctors could not refuse to provide health care based on their fear of contracting HIV. GLAD pursued this case because we knew that the ADA could provide powerful protections for people living with HIV and AIDS, people who at the time faced harsh discrimination in nearly every realm of life.

We won the case in the federal trial court in Bangor, Maine. And we won again at the U.S. Court of Appeals. Most people thought that would be the end of the road – a solid precedent.

At that point, the Supreme Court had considered zero ADA cases and zero cases dealing with HIV or AIDS. Most observers thought there was no way the Court would hear this case. When I told my father that I was working on a case that might go to the Supreme Court, he expressed a strong sense of fatherly skepticism. But he wasn’t far off from what most people thought.

Now, it had happened. I called my co-counsel. I called my client. And then, because news wasn’t rocketing around the world via the internet, I knew I should call reporters. In those days of bare-bones staffing and tight cash, the lawyers at GLAD did all their own press work. We did a decent job, but we figured it out on the fly without the communications expertise we and other LGBTQ organizations now have on board. In my first few months at GLAD in 1994 I sued Delta Airlines for removing a passenger with AIDS from a flight. I called a press conference. I didn’t have any real idea what to do, so I just acted like the people I had seen on TV. It went just fine.

Ben Klein speaking at press

Luckily, a GLAD board member who worked in marketing had dug up in advance some direct phone numbers for Supreme Court reporters. So I dialed Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times reporter who the next year won a Pulitzer Prize for her Court coverage. Along with so many lawyers, I revered her for her insight into the Court and incomparable ability to explain legal concepts to the general public with precision. She picked up her own phone, was extremely friendly, and answered affirmatively when I said, “Hi. My name is Ben Klein and I have a case that the Supreme Court just took today. Would you like a quote from me?” You can still read her story here, and see for yourself what you think of the quote I gave her that day.

And then I called my father and told him I was indeed working on a case that was going to the Supreme Court and he could read all about it in the New York Times tomorrow.

Today, as I continue to work on new matters at GLAD that have the potential to change the law, I often think to myself: any case can settle, and any case can end up in the Supreme Court. You just don’t know.

I will always remember that phone call. It changed my life and, more importantly, it changed the legal landscape for people living with HIV. I took the long weekend off to rest up. After that, there wasn’t any rest for a long time.

Spoiler: We won – a critical victory for fighting HIV-related discrimination in jobs, housing and health care. But that’s another GLAD story.

Listen to Ben Klein talk about this pivotal case on our podcast: A Culture-Shifting Moment: Bragdon v. Abbott and HIV Discrimination

Trump’s Plan to Limit Asylum Applications Is Illegal, Un-American, and Puts Lives at Risk

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Statement of Janson Wu, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Executive Director:

President Trump’s announcement that he will restrict asylum applications from individuals crossing the U.S.-Mexico border is unacceptable and flies in the face of settled international and national laws.

Asylum is a life-saving system that is designed precisely to protect the extremely vulnerable. This heartless policy stands in direct opposition to our core American ideals of liberty and human rights. Cutting off the right to seek asylum puts at severe risk individuals, including LGBTQ individuals, who face substantial threats in their home countries.

By turning away those forced to flee places where they are fundamentally unsafe because of who they are, or their political beliefs, this administration is putting their lives at risk.

MA Voters Affirm Protections for Transgender People, Approving Ballot Question 3

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Statements of Janson Wu and Jennifer Levi

Défenseurs juridiques et avocats GLBTQ

Yesterday Massachusetts voters resoundingly voted “yes” on Ballot Question 3, affirming the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming people.

“This vote shows the heart and strength of Massachusetts voters and of the Commonwealth’s transgender community,” said Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). “This was an incredibly smart and well-run campaign, fueled by thousands of volunteers and supporters. Transgender people, along with countless family members, neighbors and allies, put everything on the line, sharing personal stories, having real conversations with voters, and working countless hours, month after month. We’re incredibly proud today.”

Jennifer Levi, GLAD’s Transgender Rights Project Director, said “The truth is that having to campaign for our rights and prove our humanity was hard work and took a physical and emotional toll on many members of our community. The success of the campaign rested on people speaking about the reality of their lives and the lives of those who they love, support, and depend upon. Yesterday’s momentous vote shows what is possible when we work together and show up for one another.”

This vote marks the first time in our nation’s history that transgender rights have been upheld on a statewide ballot and was closely watched across the country. “Much work lies ahead of us,” said Levi, “but this historic victory gives hope to transgender people and all fair minded people everywhere, and buoys us as we keep moving forward together.”

GLAD, a member of the executive committee of the Yes on 3 campaign, has led efforts to pass transgender nondiscrimination protections throughout New England, including the Massachusetts law upheld by this vote, and has litigated ground-breaking transgender rights cases including two current challenges to the Trump administration’s ban on transgender members of the military, Doe c. Trump et Stockman contre Trump.

The Freedom for All Massachusetts/Yes On 3 campaign executive committee was comprised of local and national organizations, including ACLU Massachusetts, BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Youth), Fenway Health, Freedom for All Americans, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Greater Boston PFLAG, Human Rights Campaign, Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, and MassEquality.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Today we are celebrating an incredible, historic win for equality, for love, and for freedom.

Massachusetts said YES on Question 3, upholding full, critical nondiscrimination protections for transgender people in public places –affirming that dignity and respect for all are non-negotiable values in the Bay State.

This vote means the law we fought so long and hard for in the Massachusetts legislature is there for good. It means that transgender people across Massachusetts can continue going about their daily lives just like everyone else – knowing they are fully protected from discrimination.

This vote also sends a powerful message across the country: transgender rights are human rights, and we won’t turn back the clock on equality for all.

Thank you!

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

I’m asking you – if you are eligible and able – please vote tomorrow, November 6.

Voting is how we show our collective strength: as LGBTQ people and allies; as people who care about fairness and justice. It is as crucial to securing equality, safety, and dignity as does the litigation and advocacy work you help GLAD do every day.

So many of our communities have been under attack for the last two years.

GLAD will continue to fight discriminatory policies, whether at the federal or state level, with every tool we have.

But you also have a potent tool with which to fight these injustices: your vote.

Voting influences whether those in power listen to our concerns or ignore us completely. It is about whether hostile, divisive agendas are allowed to gain and maintain traction in our public policy and discourse.

Voting determines who gets appointed to our judiciary, which can have profound consequences for LGBTQ rights, access to healthcare, justice for victims of over-policing, and even who gets to vote.

Voting determines who sets the policy agenda and who gets the bully pulpit, both of which affect states and the national conversation. Every day we see and hear how much that matters

If you care about LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, the rights of immigrants, reproductive freedom, and racial justice; if you’re disturbed about the rise in xenophobia, and white supremacist hate and violence; if you worry about gun violence affecting your kids; or if you just want to feel as though your government could be on your side, instead of putting a target on your back, you must vote.

Despite the grim headlines of late, the reality is that Americans who believe in fairness and dignity for all outnumber those that don’t.

Now, more than ever, we need every one of us who believes in justice to make our voices heard on election day.

Des officiers et chirurgiens généraux à la retraite, des vétérans d'Irak et d'Afghanistan d'Amérique, le Réseau d'action des femmes militaires, la NAACP, le Centre Korematsu, des historiens militaires, le Centre national de droit des femmes, 19 États et d'autres organisations s'opposent officiellement à l'interdiction des transgenres dans l'armée.

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Washington, DC—Un large éventail d'anciens chefs militaires, d'organisations de défense des droits civiques et d'anciens combattants, de groupes de femmes, d'universitaires et d'historiens militaires, ainsi que d'États, ont exprimé publiquement leur opposition aux efforts continus du président Trump visant à exclure les personnes transgenres du service militaire. Des groupes et des particuliers ont déposé treize mémoires d'amis de la cour soutenant les plaignants dans l'affaire Doe c. Trump devant la Cour d'appel des États-Unis pour le district de Columbia. L'affaire a été déposée par le Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes (NCLR) et l'association GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD). Il s'agit de la première action en justice contestant l'interdiction de service militaire imposée aux personnes transgenres par Trump et Pence, et elle a permis d'obtenir la première injonction préliminaire suspendant cette interdiction pendant l'audience.

Un mémoire d'ami de la cour est déposé par des personnes non parties à une affaire qui ont une expertise à offrir et un vif intérêt pour l'objet du litige.

« Les anciens chefs militaires les plus respectés de notre pays s'opposent publiquement à cette interdiction destructrice et irrationnelle. Ils affirment devant le tribunal qu'exclure des personnes qualifiées au seul motif de leur transsexualité nuit au recrutement et à la fidélisation des militaires et contredit les valeurs militaires fondamentales de loyauté, de devoir, de respect, d'intégrité et d'honneur », a déclaré le tribunal. Shannon Minter, directrice juridique du NCLR.

« Les mémoires présentés par ces experts expliquent pourquoi l'interdiction de l'armée aux personnes transgenres affaiblit notre armée actuelle et future. Ils offrent également un éclairage historique, démontrant que, tout comme l'interdiction des femmes au combat et la ségrégation raciale des militaires, l'interdiction de l'armée aux personnes transgenres doit être reléguée aux oubliettes de l'histoire », a déclaré Jennifer Levi, directrice du projet GLAD sur les droits des transgenres.

Les principaux arguments incluent:

Un briefing convaincant Des vétérans d'Irak et d'Afghanistan d'Amérique, du Service Women's Action Network, de la NYC Veterans Alliance et d'autres, mettent en lumière les héros militaires qui auraient été exclus du service si les réglementations discriminatoires antérieures étaient restées en vigueur :

Imaginez où en serait notre armée aujourd'hui si les interdictions et limitations de service imposées par le passé n'avaient pas été levées. Nous n'aurions probablement pas vu le général Colin Powell, premier Afro-Américain à diriger l'état-major interarmées. Nous n'aurions probablement pas vu la lieutenante-générale Susan Helms, première femme officier de l'armée de l'air à s'aventurer dans l'espace au sein de l'équipage de la navette spatiale Endeavor. Nous n'aurions probablement pas vu la générale de brigade Tammy Smith, première générale ouvertement LGB de l'histoire de l'armée américaine. Et si l'interdiction des personnes transgenres est maintenue, nous ne saurons probablement jamais quels futurs héros notre pays a laissés de côté, y compris potentiellement les plaignants dans cette affaire.

Un autre bref Rédigé par le Truman Center, Minority Veterans of America et d'autres, ce livre présente des témoignages à la première personne de militaires et d'anciens combattants sur la manière dont les diverses expériences des militaires renforcent l'armée, y compris cette citation d'un ancien combattant des Marines :

Les unités les plus efficaces que j'ai vues étaient celles composées de personnes aux perspectives différentes, capables de réfléchir à des solutions inédites. Lorsque j'étais au Moyen-Orient, je souhaitais une unité composée de personnes variées. Ainsi, je savais qu'en cas de problème, et il y en avait systématiquement un, nous réfléchirions à la manière de l'aborder sous tous les angles. Mon équipe et moi-même nous souciions uniquement de la résolution du problème.

*Pour accéder à une description et à un lien vers le mémoire complet de chacun des 13 mémoires d'amicus curiae déposés, Cliquez ici

ARRIÈRE-PLAN

9 août 2017:NCLR et GLAD, avec l'aide des avocats coopérants de WilmerHale et Foley Hoag LLP, ont déposé Doe c. Trump—la première action en justice intentée pour mettre fin à l'interdiction, contestant sa constitutionnalité et demandant une injonction préliminaire à l'échelle nationale pour l'empêcher de prendre effet pendant que l'affaire est entendue au tribunal.

25 août 2017:Le président Trump a publié un mémorandum ordonnant au secrétaire à la Défense James Mattis de soumettre « un plan de mise en œuvre » de l’interdiction d’ici le 23 mars 2018.

23 mars 2018:Le plan de mise en œuvre élaboré par le secrétaire Mattis (« Plan de mise en œuvre ») a été rendu public et approuvé par le président Trump.

20 avril 2018:Sur la base du plan de mise en œuvre, le gouvernement a déposé une requête visant à dissoudre l'injonction préliminaire nationale du 30 octobre interdisant l'interdiction militaire des transgenres émise par le tribunal de district américain du district de Columbia, une requête visant à rejeter la deuxième plainte modifiée des plaignants et une requête en jugement sommaire.

11 mai 2018:Les plaignants ont déposé leur requête reconventionnelle en jugement sommaire, ainsi que des requêtes s'opposant aux requêtes du défendeur visant à dissoudre l'injonction et à rejeter la plainte des plaignants.

6 août 2018 : La juge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly a rejeté la requête des défendeurs en rejet et la requête en dissolution de l'injonction préliminaire.

21 septembre 2018 : Les défendeurs-appelants ont déposé leur mémoire d'ouverture auprès de la Cour d'appel du circuit de DC.

10 décembre 2018:Les plaidoiries orales sont prévues devant la Cour d'appel du circuit de DC.

Pour plus d'informations, consultez le site Web du NCLR et du GLAD décrivant l'historique et le statut de l'interdiction militaire des transgenres de Trump-Pence. https://notransmilitaryban.org/.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

Response to New York Times Report of Trump Administration’s Latest Move Against Transgender People

Statement of GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi

Today’s New York Times report that the Trump Administration is considering a proposal to define the word “sex” for legal purposes in a way that deliberately excludes transgender people is one more example of this administration’s disregard of human rights and its heartless political strategy of attacking the most vulnerable among us.

The reactionary policies of this administration have caused and will cause too many to suffer. But staying focused on the changes that our community, friends, and allies have so bravely brought about through our advocacy, our words, and our deeds, sustains me. It informs my firm belief that the callousness of this administration is an aberration. We will persist, justice will win out, and this challenging moment will not define our country’s future.

This reported move is in conflict with the approach of both federal and state courts and government agencies in interpreting laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Even though the administration is working hard to delegitimize the federal judiciary upon which so many civil rights advancements have depended, we know that justice means justice for all. GLAD will never back down from pursuing protections and challenging unconstitutional laws and policies in the courts.

But just as importantly, the ideology being pushed by this administration is contrary to the beliefs and vision of countless leaders in education, business, medical and scientific communities, and among political leaders who have been willing to work across the aisle when rights and safety have been at stake. It also stands in stark contrast with the lives and experience of transgender people, our families, friends, neighbors and coworkers, all across this great nation.

The bottom line is that this administration has a transparent, callous, political agenda – and it is willing to undermine our most fundamental institutions to pursue it. We have seen this at work everywhere from the military – where Trump continues to pursue his ban on transgender troops despite its proven negative impact on military readiness and vocal opposition from military leaders – to the arenas of education, employment, and healthcare. It is a toxic agenda, dangerous to us all.

This administration continues to act rashly and in mean-spirited ways. But we have the power to counter it. We are strong and resilient. We will not back down and cannot be erased. We will continue telling the truth about our lives, treating one another with compassion, and fighting for justice. It is imperative that we act now, avec our collective power, to stand up for what is right. We have an opportunity on November 6 to voice our values, to support candidates who believe in fairness, and reject those who use human beings as political pawns.

In Massachusetts, we face a critical vote – one that offers the chance to affirm the dignity and humanity of transgender people and to uphold the value of treating one another with respect. How Massachusetts votes on Question 3 will impact the direction de our nation. I am hopeful that the people in my home state will vote Yes on 3 à preserve the transgender civil rights law which we fought so long and so hard to pass. I am optimistic that we will demonstrate, once again, that the cruel agenda of a few does not reflect the will of We, the People.

The reactionary policies of this administration have caused and will cause too many to suffer. But staying focused on the changes that our community, friends, and allies have so bravely brought about through our advocacy, our words, and our deeds, sustains me. It informs my firm belief that the callousness of this administration is an aberration. We will persist, justice will win out, and this challenging moment will not define our country’s future.

Nouvelles

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 38

GLAD joined The Wilderness Society and over eighty organizations to send a letter today to the National Park Service opposing the proposed “protest fee” for demonstrations on the national mall.

In August, the National Park Service issued a proposed rule to introduce fees for holding protests on the National Mall.

We are deeply concerned that this proposal would infringe on Americans’ rights to free speech and assembly. The financial barrier would preclude equal opportunity and access, dissuading and prohibiting some Americans from demonstrating. The ability to afford fees for permits must not be a factor in who gets the opportunity to protest at our most iconic and politically significant sites. We are part of a broad coalition of opposition spanning lots of issue areas because free speech and assembly matter for all issues.

This letter of opposition (see below) was submitted with more than 80 organizations signing on to defend protest rights on the National Mall. We encourage individuals to submit comments on the proposal ici through Monday, October 15^ème.

Contacts:

Hannah Malvin, Senior Representative for Partnerships, The Wilderness Society | The Wilderness Society Action Fund, 202-429-3941, hannah_malvin@tws.org.

Michael Reinemer, 202-429-3949, michael_reinemer@tws.org

October 15, 2018

Mr. Brian Joyner, Chief of Staff, National Mall and Memorial Parks

National Park Service

900 Ohio Drive SW, Washington, DC 20024

Dear Mr. Joyner:

We write to express our deep concern over proposed rulemaking RIN 1024-AE45, issued August 7, 2018, which would revise the National Park Service’s protest permitting process regarding demonstrations at the National Mall, Memorial Parks, and President’s Park.

This proposal would infringe on Americans’ rights to free speech and assembly. Forcing Americans to pay to lawfully assemble at our most iconic and politically significant sites places a financial barrier that precludes equal opportunity and access, dissuading and prohibiting Americans from demonstrating. The ability to afford fees for permits must not be a factor in who gets the opportunity to protest on these public lands. Introducing fees for First Amendment demonstrations would represent an overwhelming departure from American values.

We strongly urge you to revise the proposed rule and maintain access to vibrant, participatory democracy for all Americans regardless of socioeconomic status or support from wealthy donors. Protesting is a cornerstone of American democracy. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Over centuries, Americans have come together from near and far and lifted their voices, from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech advancing the civil rights movement to the 2017 Women’s March, the largest demonstration in American history. Americans have cried out signifying ardent diversity of thought on a wide variety of issues spanning from war and peace to the economy, the environment, civil rights, human rights, and more. There is a fundamental personal dignity in protest—the insistence that one’s voice matters. Protesting is also a patriotic act, as Americans show up to help steer the path of our country. As we work to fulfill the promise of this country, we must never restrict access to the public lands surrounding its halls of power.

Thank you for your commitment to preserving our cultural history and natural resources. As you work to manage an increase in requests for permits and maintain your commitment to preserving visitor experience, resource protection, and public safety, we trust you will reconsider this proposal and ensure that the right of all Americans to express their beliefs in our nation’s capital will be safeguarded.

Sincerely,

American Hiking Society

American Library Association

American Public Health Association

Americans for Financial Reform

Anti-Defamation League

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)

Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education Professionals

Association of Research Libraries

Allié des athlètes

The Avarna Group

Bend the Arc

Bold Alliance

Brown Environmentalist

Brown People Camping

Californians for Western Wilderness

Campaign for Accountability

Catharsis on the Mall

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Church of Scientology National Affairs Office

Citizen’s Climate Lobby

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA)

Common Cause

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CREDO

Defend Our Future

Defending Rights & Dissent

Democracy for America

Diverse Environmental Leaders

Dogwood Alliance

Earth Ethics

Earthjustice

Earthwise Productions

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Defense Fund

Friends of the Earth US

Défenseurs juridiques et militants LGBTQ (GLAD)

Government Accountability Project

Green Muslims

GreenLatinos

Hip Hop Caucus

Hipcamp

Hispanic Access Foundation

Hispanic Federation

Campagne pour les droits de l'homme

Human Rights Watch

Interfaith Power & Light

Jews United for Justice

Lambda Legal

Latino Outdoors

League of Conservation Voters

Ligue des électrices des États-Unis

MoveOn

NAACP

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Black Justice Coalition

Centre national pour les droits des lesbiennes

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Council of Jewish Women

National Employment Law Project

National Equality Action Team (NEAT)

National Federation of the Blind

National Juvenile Justice Network

Groupe de travail national LGBTQ

National Resources Defense Council

Centre national du droit des femmes

New Mexico Voices for Children

Next 100 Coalition

Oceana

Oil Change International

Outdoor Muslims

Patagonia

People For the American Way Foundation

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Praxis Project

Project On Government Oversight

Public Citizen

SAGE

SEIU

Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network (SIREN)

Sierra Club

Centre juridique de lutte contre la pauvreté du Sud

Transforming Youth Outdoors

Veterans For Peace

The Wilderness Society

Win Without War

Women’s March