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

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 contre 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 Shannon Minter, directrice juridique du NCLR. “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 GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “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 contre Trump to December 11, and requested additional briefing from the parties.

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

###

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

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 est une organisation juridique nationale engagée à faire progresser les droits humains et civils de la communauté lesbienne, gay, bisexuelle et transgenre par le biais de litiges, de défense des politiques publiques et d'éducation du public. www.NCLRights.org

Transgender Military Ban Arguments Today in Maryland Federal Court

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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 c. 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 Shannon Minter, directrice juridique du NCLR. “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, directrice du projet sur les droits des transgenres de 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.”

Dans Doe c. 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 and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging President Trump’s military ban since filing Doe c. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9.

The two organizations are also co-counsel in a second suit challenging the ban, Stockman contre Trump, brought by Égalité Californie. Oral argument in Stockman contre 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

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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 ici 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.

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 42

Allison Wright, avocate du personnel de GLAD, a récemment reçu le prestigieux prix Lavender Rhino Prix par le History Project, la seule organisation exclusivement vouée à la documentation, à la préservation et au partage de l'histoire des communautés LGBTQ+ de Boston. Nommé d'après l'un des premiers symbolesInscrit au Mouvement de libération gay, le prix Lavender Rhino est décerné à un militant ou une organisation émergent(e) dont l'impact sur la communauté LGBTQ+ mérite d'être reconnu. Ci-dessous, dans un extrait de son discours de remerciement, Allison revient sur la signification de ce prix, tant pour elle que pour les personnes pour lesquelles elle œuvre.

Je suis extrêmement reconnaissante envers le Projet Histoire et je suis très honorée d'accepter ce prix prestigieux. Mais en vérité, je ne me sens absolument pas digne de ce prix. Je me sens indigne, car à de nombreux moments au cours des cinq dernières années et demie, j'ai voulu renoncer à me battre pour la justice, ou je l'ai fait. J'ai eu du mal à accepter d'être la seule avocate noire du GLAD et de vivre dans l'une des régions les plus blanches du pays. Il y a eu des moments où j'ai voulu abandonner, et d'autres où je n'étais pas sûre de vouloir devenir avocate.

Ma fatigue à travailler dans ce mouvement vient de la résistance au changement.

Le mouvement LGBTQ a désespérément besoin d'une transformation. Nous avons besoin de davantage d'avocats de couleur pour ce mouvement. Nous avons besoin de davantage de personnes de couleur à des postes de direction. Nous devons accepter que la justice raciale et économique sont des enjeux LGBTQ et, surtout, nous devons être ouverts à une réflexion différente sur notre travail juridique avec les communautés de couleur.

C'est cette réticence à opérer ces changements qui empêchera le mouvement LGBTQ de s'attaquer à certains de nos problèmes les plus urgents, qui touchent au cœur même de la pauvreté et du racisme, qui touchent tant de personnes LGBTQ de couleur. Aujourd'hui plus que jamais, nous avons besoin que nos alliés blancs s'expriment, agissent, parfois s'effacent pour laisser la place aux personnes de couleur, et soient ouverts au changement.

C'est mon espoir d'un mouvement LGBTQ plus évolué, mon amour pour mes personnes homosexuelles noires et brunes, en particulier mes clients, et le soutien indéfectible de mon partenaire des cinq dernières années - plus un peu d'amour de notre chihuahua de quatre ans, Sofie, qui m'ont permis de continuer au cours des cinq dernières années et demie.

Je poursuis toujours mon rêve de devenir un avocat plaidant hors pair à cause de mon ancienne cliente, une femme transgenre noire de 19 ans qui a souffert d'un sans-abrisme chronique pendant la majeure partie de son adolescence. et a eu le courage de tenir tête à un refuge pour sans-abri qui lui refusait des services égaux.

Je n'ai pas abandonné parce que mon ancien client, un militant LGBTI d'Ouganda, il a risqué sa vie et sa sécurité pour se battre pour son peuple.

Je me bats toujours parce que la mère de ma cliente transgenre noire savait que son ma fille était traitée différemment à l'école en raison de sa race et de son sexe.

Je reste dans ce combat parce que mon client latino-américain est aux prises avec des problèmes personnels de dépendance, de sans-abrisme et de pauvreté. Cela ne les a pas empêchés de contester le traitement différentiel réservé aux personnes homosexuelles de couleur par une organisation de services à but non lucratif affiliée à une religion..

J'accepte ce prix pour mes clients dont la résilience et le courage de se défendre et de défendre les autres ont conduit au changement non seulement pour eux mais aussi pour d'autres dans des circonstances similaires.

En acceptant ce prix, je fais également une promesse à moi-même et à ma famille queer POC : même si je peux être fatiguée ou en colère, perdue et consternée, je ne cesserai jamais de défendre nos intérêts.

Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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 c. 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 requêtes en rejet de l'affaire et opposition à la demande de mesures d'urgence des plaignants, 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, directrice du projet sur les droits des transgenres de 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, directrice juridique du 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 c. Trump on August 9 on behalf of five transgender servicemembers. In the weeks since, NCLR and GLAD filed an August 31 motion dans Biche 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 contre 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 c. 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 contre Trump

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 42

GLAD and NCLR are co-counsel in Égalité Californie‘s lawsuit challenging the transgender military ban, Stockman contre Trump. Equality California is a plaintiff in the suit together with seven individual plaintiffs who are currently serving or have taken steps to enlist.

The three organizations filed a requête en injonction préliminaire on October 2, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for Central California to immediately stop the ban and prevent “further irreparable harm” to transgender Americans who are currently serving in the military or have been barred from enlisting. GLAD and NCLR previously filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Doe c. Trump, the first of four lawsuits across the country filed against the Trump Administration’s transgender military ban.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss and a motion opposing emergency relief in Stockman contre Trump on October 23. GLAD, EQCA, and NCLR slammed the government’s response for ignoring the harms this dangerous policy is inflicting on our nation’s service members and transgender individuals who want to enlist but can’t. En savoir plus.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss on November 6. A hearing was scheduled in Stockman contre Trump on November 20.

On April 25, 2018, GLAD and NCLR filed our opposition to a Trump-Pence Administration request to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction that U.S. District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued on December 22, 2017.

On September 18, 2018, Judge Bernal refusé the Government’s motion to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction.

Also see www.notransmilitaryban.org for the latest information.

LISTE DES DOCUMENTS DE L'AFFAIRE

Order denying Government’s Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, 9/18/18

Slips

Filing November 6, 2017

Original Supporting Declarations

Plaignants :

Former Top Military Leaders:

Medical Expert:

Declaration of George Richard Brown, MD

Government’s Response

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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 c. Trump

Maison » National/Fédéral » Page 42

Victoire : Le 25 janvier 2021, le président Biden a publié un décret levant l’interdiction du service militaire pour les personnes transgenres. Depuis que l’administration sortante a commencé à appliquer cette interdiction en avril 2019, des militaires transgenres engagés ont été menacés de démobilisation, et les Américains transgenres qualifiés se sont vu interdire de s’engager, de participer au ROTC ou de fréquenter les académies militaires. Lire la déclaration complète sur notransmilitaryban.org.

Mise à jour du 24 août 2018 – La juge fédérale Colleen Kollar-Kotelly a déclaré aujourd'hui a rendu une décision ordonnant à l'administration Trump de divulguer des informations sur sa décision d'interdire aux troupes transgenres autrement qualifiées de faire leur service militaire Doe c. Trump, L'affaire GLAD et NCLR contestant l'interdiction militaire des transgenres par l'administration Trump.

La juge Kollar-Kotelly a également rejeté les requêtes des deux parties en vue d'une résolution complète de l'affaire. Dans sa décision, elle a déclaré que le gouvernement avait refusé à tort de produire les documents relatifs à sa décision d'annuler la politique existante et d'exclure les personnes transgenres du service militaire. En savoir plus

Mise à jour du 6 août 2018 – La juge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly a rejeté aujourd'hui la motion de l'administration Trump visant à rejeter l'affaire NCLR et GLAD Doe c. Trump, la première action en justice intentée pour contester l'interdiction d'entrée en service militaire imposée aux personnes transgenres par Trump-Pence et la première à obtenir une injonction préliminaire empêchant l'entrée en vigueur de l'interdiction pendant l'examen de l'affaire par le tribunal. La juge Kollar-Kotelly a également rejeté la requête de l'administration Trump visant à lever l'injonction préliminaire, ce qui aurait mis en péril la carrière de la quasi-totalité des milliers de soldats transgenres actuellement en service et permis à l'administration Trump de commencer à appliquer l'interdiction. La juge Kollar-Kotelly n'a pas encore statué sur la requête en jugement sommaire des plaignants, qui réglerait l'affaire en rendant un jugement définitif déclarant l'interdiction inconstitutionnelle et inapplicable. En savoir plus

Mise à jour du 22 juin 2018 – GLAD et NCLR ont déposé notre réponse à l'appui de notre requête reconventionnelle en jugement sommaire dans Doe c. TrumpSi la juge Kollar-Kotelly donne raison aux plaignants, cette décision empêcherait définitivement l'entrée en vigueur de l'interdiction d'entrée en service militaire imposée aux personnes transgenres par Trump et Pence. Le dépôt de plainte aujourd'hui réfute la tentative de l'administration de « occulter la réalité et de redéfinir le plan Mattis comme autre chose que ce qu'il est clairement : un plan visant à garantir qu'aucune personne transgenre ne serve dans les forces armées de notre pays, à quelque titre que ce soit. » La réponse des plaignants est la dernière. dans une série de dépôts cela doit se produire avant que le juge Kollar-Kotelly ne détermine si elle peut rendre une décision permanente bloquant l'interdiction.

En savoir plus

Mise à jour du 11 mai 2018 – Les plaignants transgenres pour l’interdiction de l’armée Doe c. Trump a déposé un requête reconventionnelle en jugement sommaire devant le tribunal de district des États-Unis pour le district de Columbia. La requête des plaignants affirme que faits incontestés démontrer que l'interdiction, y compris la politique de mise en œuvre de Mattis le 23 mars, viole leurs droits à l'égalité de protection et à une procédure régulière, et que le tribunal devrait fournir une mesure déclaratoire et injonctive permanente pour empêcher que l'interdiction Trump-Pence ne soit jamais mise en œuvre.

Les plaignants ont également déposé des requêtes distinctes s'opposant aux motions de l'administration visant à rejeter l'affaire et à dissoudre l'injonction préliminaire nationale publié le 30 octobre 2017 par la juge de district Colleen Kollar-Kotelly du tribunal de district des États-Unis pour le district de Columbia.

Déclarations justificatives déposées le 11 mai 2018 :

Déclaration de Josh Safer, MD, FACP, président de l'Association professionnelle des États-Unis pour la santé des personnes transgenres (USPATH)

Déclaration de George R. Brown, MD, DFAPA

Déclaration de Brad Carson, ancien sous-secrétaire par intérim à la Défense pour le personnel et la préparation

Déclaration de Lauren Milgroom, à l'appui de la déclaration de faits importants incontestés

Principaux arguments des plaignants déposés le 11 mai 2018 :

L’interdiction de l’armée pour les personnes transgenres décidée par Trump et Pence nuit à la préparation militaire en excluant de manière irrationnelle les militaires transgenres qualifiés.
Le « Plan Mattis » du 23 mars de l’administration Trump exclut les personnes transgenres du service en raison de leur statut transgenre, plutôt que sur une base médicale.
Le « Plan Mattis » est la même interdiction catégorique du service militaire transgenre que le président Trump a tweetée, malgré sa prétendue « exception » pour les personnes transgenres qui servent dans leur sexe de naissance. De même qu'une politique exigeant des musulmans qu'ils renoncent à leur foi pour servir dans l'armée constituerait une interdiction du service militaire pour les musulmans, une politique exigeant des personnes transgenres qu'elles servent dans leur sexe de naissance constitue une interdiction du service militaire pour les personnes transgenres. Cet argument est également similaire à l'argument précédent, rejeté sans succès par les tribunaux, selon lequel les lois limitant le mariage aux seuls couples homme-femme ne constituaient pas une discrimination à l'égard des homosexuels, puisqu'une personne homosexuelle pouvait épouser une personne de sexe opposé.
Les documents de l'administration Trump, obtenus par voie de communication, montrent que le processus ayant mené au « Plan Mattis » visait spécifiquement à élaborer une politique cohérente avec l'interdiction totale des services aux personnes transgenres décidée par Trump. Plutôt que de fournir une justification valable pour traiter différemment les personnes transgenres, le plan s'appuie sur des stéréotypes de genre et des généralisations hâtives concernant les rôles et les capacités des personnes transgenres.
Exclure des candidats qualifiés et aptes du service militaire sur la base de généralisations trop générales est irrationnel. Par exemple, la dépression, l'anxiété et le suicide sont plus fréquents chez les Blancs que chez les Noirs, mais l'armée n'exclut pas les Blancs du service militaire. De plus, les femmes sont deux fois plus susceptibles que les hommes de souffrir de troubles anxieux, mais l'armée n'exclut pas les femmes du service militaire.
Les arguments des accusés concernant la cohésion de l'unité se résument à l'affirmation selon laquelle « de par leur simple existence, les personnes transgenres portent atteinte aux normes fondées sur le sexe ». Si « cette affirmation suffisait à justifier l'exclusion des personnes transgenres du service militaire, elle justifierait également leur exclusion de toute institution appliquant des critères fondés sur le sexe pour l'accès aux installations, y compris les écoles, les lieux de travail, les lieux publics, etc. » – une affirmation que les tribunaux du pays ont rejetée à maintes reprises.

Une ligne droite entre les tweets du président Trump et le « plan Mattis » pour mettre en œuvre l'interdiction

(page de la Déclaration de Faits matériels incontestés)

En savoir plus sur ce dossier. (suite…)

Blog

Maison » National/Fédéral » 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.