News

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

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

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.

Retired Military Officers and Surgeons General, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Service Women’s Action Network, NAACP, the Korematsu Center, Military Historians, National Women’s Law Center, 19 States, and Others Go on Record Opposing Trans Military Ban

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

Washington, D.C.—A wide array of former military leaders, veterans’ and civil rights organizations, women’s groups, military scholars and historians, and states have gone on record opposing President Trump’s ongoing efforts to exclude transgender people from military service. Groups and individuals filed thirteen friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case was filed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and was the first lawsuit to challenge the Trump-Pence transgender military ban and secured the first preliminary injunction halting the ban while the case is heard in court.

A friend-of-the-court brief is filed by non-parties to a case who have expertise to offer and a strong interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

“Our nation’s most respected former military leaders are going on record to oppose this destructive and irrational ban. They are telling the court that excluding qualified individuals simply because they are transgender harms military recruitment and retention and contradicts foundational military values of loyalty, duty, respect, integrity and honor,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.

“The briefs submitted by these experts explain why the transgender military ban weakens our present and future military. These also provide a historical lens, demonstrating that just like the ban on women in combat, and racial segregation of servicemembers, the transgender military ban must be relegated to the dustbin of history,” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi.

Key arguments include:

A compelling brief from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Service Women’s Action Network, NYC Veterans Alliance and others, spotlights military heroes who would have been excluded from service if prior discriminatory regulations had remained in effect:

“Consider where our military would be today if past categorical bans and limits on service had not been lifted. We would likely have seen no Gen. Colin Powell, the first African American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We would likely have seen no Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, the first female Air Force officer to venture into space as part of the crew of the space shuttle Endeavor. We would likely have seen no Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith, the first openly LGB general in U.S. Army history. And if the Transgender Ban is allowed to stand, we will likely never know what future heroes our country has passed over, including potentially the very plaintiffs in this case.”

Another brief authored by the Truman Center, Minority Veterans of America, and others presents first-person accounts by servicemembers and veterans about how the diverse experiences of servicemembers strengthens the military, including this quote from a Marine veteran:

“The most effective units I saw were those that had people with different perspectives who could think about how to solve a problem in a way you never thought of. When I was in the Middle East I wanted a unit comprised of a variety of people, that way I knew that when a problem occurred, and one always occurred, we would be thinking about how to tackle it from all the angles. All I, and my team cared about, was how do we solve the problem.”

*To access a description of and link to the full brief for each of the 13 amicus briefs filed, click here

BACKGROUND

June 30, 2016: The United States Department of Defense (DOD) adopted a policy permitting transgender people to serve in the military based on a nearly two year DOD review determining that there was no valid reason to exclude qualified personnel from military service simply because they are transgender.

July 26, 2017: President Trump tweeted that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

August 9, 2017: NCLR and GLAD, with cooperating counsel from WilmerHale and Foley Hoag LLP, filed Doe v. Trump—the first lawsuit filed to stop the ban, challenging its constitutionality and seeking a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop it from taking effect while the case is heard in court.

August 25, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum ordering Secretary of Defense James Mattis to submit “a plan for implementing” the ban by March 23, 2018.

October 30, 2017: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Doe v. Trump plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their claim that President Trump’s ban violates equal protection, that plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed without a preliminary injunction to stop the ban, and that the public interest and balance of hardships weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief and temporarily halting the ban while the case is heard by the court.

March 23, 2018: The implementation plan developed by Secretary Mattis (“Implementation Plan”) was released to the public and endorsed by President Trump.

April 20, 2018: Based on the Implementation Plan, the government filed a motion to dissolve the October 30 nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the transgender military ban issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and a motion for Summary Judgment.

May 11, 2018: Plaintiffs filed their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions opposing Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.

August 6, 2018: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction

August 27, 2018: Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s denial of their motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the transgender military ban.

September 21, 2018: The Defendants-Appellants filed their opening brief in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

October 22, 2018: Plaintiffs-Appellees filed their opposition to Defendants’ appeal, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to leave in place the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the transgender military ban.

December 10, 2018: Oral argument is scheduled at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017.

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

News

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

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, with 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 of our nation. I am hopeful that the people in my home state will vote Yes on 3 to 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.

News

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

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 here through Monday, October 15^th.

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

Athlete Ally

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

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)

Government Accountability Project

Green Muslims

GreenLatinos

Hip Hop Caucus

Hipcamp

Hispanic Access Foundation

Hispanic Federation

Human Rights Campaign

Human Rights Watch

Interfaith Power & Light

Jews United for Justice

Lambda Legal

Latino Outdoors

League of Conservation Voters

League of Women Voters of the United States

MoveOn

NAACP

NARAL Pro-Choice America

National Black Justice Coalition

National Center for Lesbian Rights

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

National LGBTQ Task Force

National Resources Defense Council

National Women’s Law Center

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

Southern Poverty Law Center

Transforming Youth Outdoors

Veterans For Peace

The Wilderness Society

Win Without War

Women’s March

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

UPDATE: On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a narrow and limiting ruling for Catholic Social Services that focuses on specific contractual language. The ruling leaves intact the broader principle that governments can require contractors, including religious agencies, to comply with nondiscrimination laws – including those that protect same-sex married couples – when providing taxpayer-funded social services. While the Court found Philadelphia’s contract with CSS to be unenforceable, it did so because the contract allowed individual discretionary exemptions on a case-by-base basis but would not consider CSS’s claim. The case stemmed from a claim by Catholic Social Services that it should have been allowed to decline to work with same-sex couples when providing foster care placement services under contract with the City of Philadelphia. Read GLAD’s full statement.

Watch the virtual briefing about what the ruling means for the LGBTQ community.

In 2018, the City of Philadelphia suspended a contract with Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) to provide foster care placement services because the agency refused to work with married same-sex couples and unmarried couples, violating Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination ordinance. CSS sued the city, claiming, among other things, that the City’s actions violated its rights of free exercise of religion. Seeking an injunction^* against the City, CSS lost in the federal trial court and then again on appeal. The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 4, 2020 (audio available here).

Fulton is poised to be a landmark case on the question of whether religiously-based social welfare organizations that receive taxpayer dollars through local government contracts can be exempt from the government’s nondiscrimination laws. There is a possibility that a decision in Fulton could come to mean that nearly any religious entity, or even a private company asserting its religious beliefs, would have permission to refuse to serve or work with anyone simply because of who they are.

So many people rely on government-funded entities like CSS to fulfill essential needs — for food, housing, health care, and more. This case could lay the foundation for the reversal of protections on which the most vulnerable in our community rely to ensure equal access to goods and services. It could also require the government at all levels to fund discriminatory groups. That’s why GLAD, joined by 27 other national, regional, and state LGBTQ advocacy organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on August 20, 2020 in support of the City of Philadelphia’s position, urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to introduce a broad exemption to nondiscrimination laws that would undermine Constitutional equal protection guarantees and introduce a dangerous and unworkable scheme into local, state, and federal lawmaking.

View GLAD’s brief here or click here to read all of the filings in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

NCLR and GLAD, the LGBT Legal Organizations Leading the Fight to Stop the Trump-Pence Trans Military Ban, Joint Statement on 7 Years Since the End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

WASHINGTON, DC—Today marks seven years since the U.S. Department of Defense ended Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—the military policy that prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers from open service. National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director Shannon Minter and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, the attorneys who filed the first lawsuit to stop Trump’s transgender military ban and the first to secure a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban while the case is heard in court, issued the following joint statement:

“Seven years ago, our country discarded a baseless and discriminatory policy that forced dedicated and courageous servicemembers into the shadows.

“But under President Trump, we see history repeating itself. The same stigma and false stereotypes used to justify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are being reprised by the Trump-Pence administration in an attempt to force out 9,000 trained, qualified transgender troops, who are serving honorably at home and overseas.

“To date, every court to hear a case challenging the ban has recognized that these arguments ring hollow and that any servicemember who can meet the standards should be permitted to serve. But the Trump-Pence administration continues to try to push the ban forward.

“Just as we stood with our community during Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, we will continue to stand with transgender servicemembers now until Trump’s unconstitutional, discriminatory transgender military ban is relegated to the dustbin of history.”

###

Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. www.GLAD.org

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.NCLRights.org

GLAD Calls for Investigation of Sexual Assault Allegation and Halt to Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

Statement of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Executive Director Janson Wu:

Allegations of sexual assault are serious and must be treated as such. Christine Blasey Ford has taken considerable risk by coming forward publicly. These assertions regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh must be thoroughly and conscientiously investigated before any further action is taken regarding his potential appointment to a lifetime term on our nation’s highest court.

We call on the leaders and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to take their duty seriously. The Committee cannot go forward with any vote until there is a full, transparent process to ensure these recently disclosed allegations receive the respectful and sober attention they warrant.

Blog

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

Forty years ago, during a different hot, tumultuous summer, at the height of disco and in the wake of orange juice queen Anita Bryant’s national anti-gay crusade, GLAD was born. Young Boston lawyer John Ward submitted articles of incorporation for a new legal organization that would be known as “Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.”

In 1978, Ward knew that it was revolutionary for an organization to have the words “gay and lesbian” in its name, much less advocate for LGBTQ legal rights. But revolutions are born out of necessity. The necessity of that moment was a Boston police sting operation that targeted and outed hundreds of gay men. They needed legal defense and representation, and John stepped up.

That necessary revolution laid the foundation for what we have so far accomplished together in the past four decades.

Over the last 40 years, GLAD has changed the landscape of LGBTQ rights in more ways than can be summarized. But here are a few:

Winning the right of a Rhode Island high school senior to bring his boyfriend to the prom in 1980 in our first federal district court victory, argued by GLAD founder John Ward.
Securing anti-discrimination protections for people living with HIV in our first Supreme Court victory 20 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Ben Klein.
Winning marriage equality in all six New England states, and then for the entire nation, in our second Supreme Court victory 3 years ago, argued by GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto.
Securing first-of-its-kind victories on transgender rights, including the first state supreme court decision to affirm the right of transgender students to use the appropriate restroom, argued by GLAD attorney Jennifer Levi. (And the young girl GLAD represented in that case, Nicole Maines, is now set to be TVs first transgender superhero).
Protecting families, including LGBTQ non-birth parents who have not married or adopted, through court and legislative victories, led by GLAD attorney Polly Crozier.
Winning asylum for John Wambere, a Ugandan gay man whose life was in danger due to his LGBTQ activism, thanks to representation by GLAD attorney Allison Wright.

These cases profoundly changed people’s lives, expanded the public picture of who LGBTQ people and people living with HIV are and can be. Some are now taught in law schools all over the country as well as cited in state and federal decisions.

We have a lot to be proud of. But our work together is nowhere near done. If there were ever a time when we needed another revolution, it is now.

We are facing profound attacks.

This year, we have seen more than 150 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures across the country.
We witnessed the first, but not the last attempt by our opposition to write discrimination into our constitution under the guise of “religious freedom.”
And we are on the verge of losing a critical fifth vote on the U.S. Supreme Court, threatening every legal gain we have made on LGBTQ rights over the last 20 years.

We have faced attacks and challenges before. And as our past 40 years of victories show, we know how to fight, we know how to persist, and we know how to win.

One fighter GLAD is proud to represent is our plaintiff Nicolas Talbott. Enlisting in the Air Force had been Nic’s dream for years. When President Trump tweeted his ban on transgender service members last summer, Nic felt like his entire future had been ripped away: “It essentially shattered every plan that I had.”

But instead of falling into despair and apathy, Nic chose to fight. He says, “I finally have been presented the opportunity to stand up and let my voice be heard and fight for my rights.” And thanks to Nic and his co-plaintiffs in GLAD’s two cases, as of this past January, transgender people have the chance to openly enlist for the first time in our country’s history.

What we know that gives us hope is this: we are the majority. The majority of Americans are fair, compassionate, and believe in equality and basic human decency.

Those who believe that we should all be celebrated for who we are and who we love – we are the majority. Those who understand that immigrants have always made America great – we are the majority. Those who know that our nation’s strength is rooted in our diversity, not division and exclusion – we are the majority.

But even though we are the majority, we can only win if we unite together toward a common cause.

We have grown beyond our wildest dreams, from the handful of passionate and determined activists who started a revolution 40 years ago when they founded GLAD. Our job today is to continue their work, and never, never stop fighting for a future that realizes our Constitution’s promise of equality, and justice, for all.

Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempts to Quash Trans Military Ban Lawsuit and to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

Home » National/Federal » Page 37

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies Trump administration motions to dismiss Doe v. Trump, and to dissolve the preliminary injunction preventing the ban from going into effect

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly today denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss NCLR and GLAD’s case Doe v. Trump, the first lawsuit filed challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban and the first to secure a preliminary injunction stopping the ban from going into effect while the case is heard by the court. Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied the Trump administration’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, which would have jeopardized the careers of nearly all of the thousands of currently serving transgender troops and allowed the Trump administration to begin implementing the ban. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has not yet ruled on plantiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which would resolve the case by issuing a final judgment declaring that the ban is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented. In Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order, she emphasized the importance of transgender military service with regard to military readiness, “It should not be forgotten that the United States military remains engaged in numerous armed conflicts throughout the world, and service members are still being injured and killed in those conflicts. The public interest and equities lie with allowing young men and women who are qualified and willing to serve our Nation to do so.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s also affirmed the transgender community’s capability to serve, noting, “the Mattis Implementation Plan still accomplishes an extremely broad prohibition on military service by transgender individuals that appears to be divorced from any transgender individual’s actual ability to serve. In the absence of the challenged policy, transgender individuals are subject to all of the same standards and requirements for accession and retention as any other service member. The Mattis Implementation Plan establishes a special additional exclusionary rule that precludes individuals who would otherwise satisfy the demanding standards applicable to all service members simply because they have certain traits that are associated with being transgender.” “The Trump administration’s arguments to dismiss our lawsuit and move forward with the trans military ban are full of sweeping generalizations and false stereotypes about transgender people. It’s clear Judge Kollar-Kotelly isn’t buying it—and neither should anyone else,” said Jennifer Levi, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director. “Anyone who meets the standards should be able to serve. There is no reason to subject transgender people to unconstitutional and discriminatory treatment, unlike the way the military treats any other group.” “No other military policy excludes a class of persons from serving because of who they are rather than whether they can do the job,” said Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director. “Today’s ruling strongly rejects the Trump administration’s attempt to evade the injunction and move forward with their destructive plan to exclude qualified transgender individuals from military service. By the military’s own count, thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our Doe plaintiffs has served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq. This ban is not only unconstitutional, it takes aim at dedicated servicemembers and erodes military readiness. We will keep fighting for those who fight for our country.” BACKGROUND June 30, 2016: The United States Department of Defense (DOD) adopted a policy permitting transgender people to serve in the military based on a nearly two year DOD review determining that there was no valid reason to exclude qualified personnel from military service simply because they are transgender. July 26, 2017: President Trump tweeted that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” August 9, 2017: NCLR and GLAD filed Doe v. Trump, the first lawsuit filed to stop the ban, challenging its constitutionality and requesting that the court issue a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop it from taking effect while the case is being heard in court. August 25, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum ordering Secretary of Defense James Mattis to submit “a plan for implementing” the ban by February 21, 2018. Secretary Mattis delivered this (the “Mattis Plan” and panel report) to President Trump on February 22, 2018. October 30, 2017: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Doe v. Trump plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their claim that President Trump’s ban violates equal protection, that plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed without a preliminary injunction to stop the ban, and that the public interest and balance of hardships weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief and temporarily halting the ban while the case is heard by the court. March 23, 2018: President Trump accepts the “Mattis Plan” and issues a memorandum in which he “revoked” his August 25 Memorandum. April 20, 2018: Defendants file a motion to dissolve the October 30 nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the transgender military ban issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint; and a Motion for Summary Judgment. May 11, 2018: Plaintiffs file their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions in opposition to Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017. For more information, go to NCLR and GLAD’s website https://notransmilitaryban.org/. ### Through strategic litigation, public policy advocacy, and education, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders works in New England and nationally to create a just society free of discrimination based on gender identity and expression, HIV status, and sexual orientation. www.GLAD.org The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.NCLRights.org