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 v. 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 NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “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 GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “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.”

Doe, 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 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.

###

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 (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

Home » National/Federal » 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, D.C.—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, and Karnoski v. Trump. The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), who represent plaintiffs in both Doe and 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, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director. “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, NCLR Legal Director. 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 v. Trump is currently scheduled to be held on December 10 in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

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/.

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.

August 6, 2018: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denies 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.

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.

###

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

Blog

Home » National/Federal » 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 v. Abbott.” At that pre-Twitter, pre-cell phone moment, only counsel and the reporters at the Court knew.

In 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

Home » National/Federal » 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

Home » National/Federal » Page 38

Statements of Janson Wu and Jennifer Levi

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders

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 v. Trump and Stockman v. 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.

News

Home » National/Federal » 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

Home » National/Federal » 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.

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 38

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

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.

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

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

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

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 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, 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 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 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