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 斯托克曼诉特朗普案, a case brought by Equality California and seven individual plaintiffs challenging the ban.

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

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

“Today we take another step forward in beating back Trump’s reckless ban,” said 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 斯托克曼诉特朗普案 to December 11, and requested additional briefing from the parties.

In addition to NCLR and GLAD, plaintiffs in 斯托克曼诉特朗普案 are represented by Latham and Watkins LLP.

###

加州平等组织 是美国最大的州级LGBTQ民权组织。我们将LGBTQ人士及其盟友的声音传递到加州乃至全美各地的权力机构，致力于为所有LGBTQ人士创造一个健康、公正、完全平等的世界。我们通过一场包容性的运动，激励、倡导和动员人们，并不懈地为我们所服务的人争取民权和社会正义。 www.EQCA.org

通过战略诉讼、公共政策倡导和教育， GLBTQ 法律倡导者和捍卫者 致力于在新英格兰和全国范围内创建一个没有基于性别认同和表达、艾滋病毒状况和性取向的歧视的公正社会。 www.GLAD.org

全国女同性恋权利中心 是一个全国性的法律组织，致力于通过诉讼、公共政策倡导和公共教育来促进女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和变性人群体的人权和公民权利。 www.NCLRights.org

Transgender Military Ban Arguments Today in Maryland Federal Court

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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 多伊诉特朗普案, the first federal lawsuit filed against the ban, by securing a nationwide preliminary injunction. NCLR and GLAD issued the following statement in support of today’s arguments in Stone v. Trump:

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

“Veterans Day reminds us of the debt we owe to all who serve – and that includes transgender service members who have sacrificed for our country,” said 詹妮弗·莱维（Jennifer Levi），同性恋者反歧视联盟（GLAD）跨性别者权利项目主任. “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.”

在 多伊诉特朗普案, 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 多伊诉特朗普案, 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, 斯托克曼诉特朗普案, brought by 加州平等组织. Oral argument in 斯托克曼诉特朗普案 is scheduled for Tuesday, November 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Masterpiece Cakeshop 诉科罗拉多州民权委员会案

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 42

2018年6月4日，美国最高法院基于针对“杰作蛋糕店”（Masterpiece Cakeshop）及本案的具体理由，推翻了科罗拉多州民权委员会的原裁决，认定该委员会在最初审理此案时并未秉持公正原则。该裁决仅适用于“杰作蛋糕店”，并不广泛允许类似企业进行歧视。法院在该裁决中确认了反歧视法的重要性以及保护LGBT群体免受歧视的必要性。

2017年12月5日，美国最高法院就此案进行了口头辩论。这里或阅读成绩单.

2017 年 10 月 30 日，GLAD 和国家 LGBTQ 权利中心 (NCLR) 提交了一份法庭之友陈述敦促美国最高法院维持科罗拉多州上诉法院 2014 年的裁决，即 Masterpiece Cakeshop 非法歧视一对同性恋伴侣.

本案涉及大卫·马林斯和查理·克雷格。2012年，他们和查理的母亲一起前往杰作蛋糕店（Masterpiece Cakeshop）订购结婚蛋糕。蛋糕店老板杰克·菲利普斯告诉他们，他不能出售结婚蛋糕，因为根据他的宗教信仰，他只能向异性伴侣出售结婚蛋糕。

大卫和查理向科罗拉多州民权委员会提起了诉讼，委员会认定该面包店违反了科罗拉多州的反歧视法。面包店并未否认其拒绝为寻求结婚蛋糕的同性伴侣提供服务的政策，并辩称其基于宗教和言论自由的理由拥有宪法赋予的权力。

同性恋者反歧视联盟和全国同性恋者权利联盟提交的简报指出，像科罗拉多州这样的反歧视法“旨在确保公民能够获得并平等享受充分参与公民生活的基本要素：获得住房、工作和公共设施”，而该面包店寻求的反歧视法豁免“将影响到 LGBT 人士的生活，并伤害到他们的孩子、家人和朋友”。

该面包店寻求的豁免“将损害公共住宿法的迫切目标，这些法律的制定基于这样的认识：它们所禁止的歧视既剥夺了个人的尊严，也剥夺了社会广泛参与政治、经济和文化生活的权利。我们敦促法院驳回这项将商业企业因个人属于特定群体而歧视其的新权利宪法化的规则。”

作为一个国家，我们很久以前就决定，面向公众开放的企业应该以平等的条件向所有人开放，包括女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋或跨性别者。任何人都不应该仅仅因为身份而被拒之门外、被拒绝服务、被解雇或被赶出家门。

该案件由美国公民自由联盟 (ACLU) 提起，法庭之友陈述书是在 Pierce Atwood LLP 的协助下撰写的。

博客

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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 多伊诉特朗普案, 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 驳回案件并反对原告紧急救济请求的动议, 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 詹妮弗·莱维（Jennifer Levi），同性恋者反歧视联盟（GLAD）跨性别者权利项目主任. “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，NCLR 法律总监. “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 多伊诉特朗普案 on August 9 on behalf of five transgender servicemembers. In the weeks since, NCLR and GLAD filed an August 31 motion 在多伊 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, 斯托克曼诉特朗普案, 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 多伊诉特朗普案 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.

斯托克曼诉特朗普案

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 42

GLAD and NCLR are co-counsel in 加州平等组织‘s lawsuit challenging the transgender military ban, 斯托克曼诉特朗普案. 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 初步禁令动议 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 多伊诉特朗普案, 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 斯托克曼诉特朗普案 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. 阅读更多.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss on November 6. A hearing was scheduled in 斯托克曼诉特朗普案 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 被拒绝 the Government’s motion to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction.

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

案件文件清单

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

内裤

Filing November 6, 2017

Original Supporting Declarations

原告：

Former Top Military Leaders:

Medical Expert:

Declaration of George Richard Brown, MD

Government’s Response

博客

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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.

多伊诉特朗普案

家 » 国家/联邦 » Page 42

胜利：2021年1月25日，拜登总统发布行政命令，解除了对跨性别者服兵役的禁令。自2019年4月即将离任的政府开始执行该禁令以来，敬业的跨性别军人一直受到开除的威胁，符合条件的跨性别美国人也被禁止入伍、参加预备役军官训练队（ROTC）或就读军事院校。完整声明请见： notransmilitaryban.org.

2018 年 8 月 24 日更新——联邦地区法官 Colleen Kollar-Kotelly 今天作出裁决命令特朗普政府披露有关禁止符合条件的跨性别军人服兵役的决定的信息 多伊诉特朗普案、GLAD 和 NCLR 对特朗普政府跨性别军人禁令提出质疑的案件。

科拉尔-科特利法官还驳回了双方提出的全面解决此案的动议。科拉尔-科特利法官在裁决中表示，政府不正当地拒绝提供与其撤销现有政策并将跨性别者排除在兵役之外的决定相关的文件。阅读更多

2018年8月6日更新—— 法官科琳·科拉尔-科特利今天驳回了特朗普政府驳回 NCLR 和 GLAD 案件的动议 多伊诉特朗普案这是第一起针对特朗普-彭斯跨性别军人禁令提起的诉讼，也是第一起在法院审理此案期间获得初步禁令阻止该禁令生效的诉讼。科拉-科特利法官还驳回了特朗普政府提出的解除初步禁令的动议。该动议将危及目前服役的数千名跨性别军人中几乎所有人的职业生涯，并允许特朗普政府开始实施禁令。科拉-科特利法官尚未对原告提出的简易判决动议作出裁决。简易判决将通过最终判决来宣告该禁令违宪且无法实施，从而解决此案。阅读更多

更新于2018年6月22日 – GLAD 和 NCLR 提交我们对简易判决交叉动议的答复在 多伊诉特朗普案如果科拉-科特利法官裁定原告胜诉，该裁决将永久阻止特朗普-彭斯跨性别军人禁令生效。今天的文件驳斥了政府试图“遮遮掩掩，将马蒂斯计划重塑成与其原本面目不同的存在：一份确保任何跨性别者都不会以任何身份在我国武装部队服役的蓝图”。原告的答复是最后一次在一系列文件中这必须在法官科拉尔-科特利决定是否可以发布永久裁决阻止该禁令之前发生。

阅读更多

2018年5月11日更新 – 跨性别军人禁令原告 多伊诉特朗普案 提交了 简易判决交叉动议 在美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院。原告的动议声称 无可争议的事实 表明该禁令（包括 3 月 23 日马蒂斯实施的政策）侵犯了他们的平等保护和正当程序权利，法院应提供永久性的宣告和禁令救济，以防止特朗普 - 彭斯禁令的实施。

原告还提出了单独的动议 反对政府驳回案件和解除全国初步禁令的动议 由美国哥伦比亚特区地方法院地区法官科琳·科拉尔-科特利于 2017 年 10 月 30 日发布。

2018 年 5 月 11 日提交的支持声明：

乔什·塞弗的宣言，医学博士，美国内科医师学会会员，美国跨性别健康专业协会 (USPATH) 主席

乔治·R·布朗宣言，医学博士，DFAPA

布拉德·卡森宣言前国防部负责人事和战备事务的代理副部长

劳伦·米尔格鲁姆的声明，以支持无争议的重要事实声明

原告于 2018 年 5 月 11 日提交的文件中的主要论点：

特朗普和彭斯的跨性别军人禁令不合理地排除了符合条件的跨性别军人，损害了军事准备。
特朗普政府 3 月 23 日提出的“马蒂斯计划”基于跨性别者身份而非任何医疗依据，将跨性别者排除在服役之外。
“马蒂斯计划”与特朗普总统在推特上发布的对跨性别者服役的绝对禁令如出一辙，尽管该计划声称对以出生性别服役的跨性别者“例外”。正如要求穆斯林只有在放弃信仰的情况下才能服兵役的政策是禁止穆斯林服役一样，要求跨性别者以出生性别服役的政策也是禁止跨性别者服役的政策。这也与之前一个失败的论点类似，该论点认为，将婚姻限制在男女伴侣范围内的法律并不歧视同性恋者，因为同性恋者可以与异性结婚。该论点已被法院一致驳回。
特朗普政府通过调查获取的文件显示，“马蒂斯计划”的制定过程，其目的正是制定一项与特朗普全面禁止跨性别服役政策相符的政策。该计划非但没有提供区别对待跨性别者的正当理由，反而依赖于性别刻板印象以及对跨性别者角色和能力的笼统概括。
基于群体的笼统概括而将符合条件的候选人排除在服役之外是不合理的。例如，抑郁症、焦虑症和自杀在白人中比黑人更常见，但军队并没有禁止白人服役。女性患焦虑症的可能性是男性的两倍，但军队并没有禁止女性服役。
被告关于部队凝聚力的论点可以归结为“跨性别者的存在本身就破坏了基于性别的标准”。如果“该论点足以证明禁止跨性别者服兵役是合理的，那么也足以证明将他们排除在任何及所有以性别为标准的机构之外是合理的，这些机构包括学校、工作场所、公共场所等等”——而全国各地的法院都一再驳回了这一论点。

特朗普总统的推文与实施禁令的“马蒂斯计划”直接相关

（摘自无可争议的重要事实)

阅读有关此文件的更多信息. （更多…）

博客

家 » 国家/联邦 » 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.