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 斯托克曼訴川普案, 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法律總監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 斯托克曼訴川普案 to December 11, and requested additional briefing from the parties.

除了 NCLR 和 GLAD 之外，原告還 斯托克曼訴川普案 are represented by Latham and Watkins LLP.

###

加州平等組織 是美國最大的州級LGBTQ民權組織。我們將LGBTQ人士及其盟友的聲音傳遞到加州乃至全美各地的權力機構，致力於為所有LGBTQ人士創造一個健康、公正、完全平等的世界。我們透過一場包容性的運動，激勵、倡導和動員人們，並不懈地為我們所服務的人爭取民權和社會正義。 www.EQCA.org

透過策略性訴訟、公共政策倡議和教育， GLBTQ 法律倡議者與捍衛者 致力於在新英格蘭和全國範圍內創建一個沒有基於性別認同和表達、愛滋病毒狀況和性取向的歧視的公正社會。 www.GLAD.org

全國女同性戀權利中心 是一個全國性的法律組織，致力於透過訴訟、公共政策倡議和公共教育來促進女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀和跨性別群體的人權和公民權利。 www.NCLRights.org

Transgender Military Ban Arguments Today in Maryland Federal Court

家 » 國家/聯邦 » 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 多伊訴川普案, 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法律總監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 珍妮佛（Jennifer Levi），同性戀反歧視聯盟（GLAD）跨性別權利計畫主任. “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 多伊訴川普案, 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 多伊訴川普案, 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, 斯托克曼訴川普案, brought by 加州平等組織. Oral argument in 斯托克曼訴川普案 is scheduled for Tuesday, November 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Masterpiece Cakeshop 訴科羅拉多州民權委員會案

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 42

2018年6月4日，美國最高法院基於針對「傑作蛋糕店」（Masterpiece Cakeshop）及本案的具體理由，推翻了科羅拉多州民權委員會的原裁決，認定該委員會在最初審理此案時並未秉持公正原則。該裁決僅適用於“傑作蛋糕店”，並不廣泛允許類似企業進行歧視。法院在該裁決中確認了反歧視法的重要性以及保護LGBT群體免受歧視的必要性。

2017年12月5日，美國最高法院就此案進行了口頭辯論。這裡或閱讀成績單.

2017 年 10 月 30 日，GLAD 和國家 LGBTQ 權利中心 (NCLR) 提交了一份法庭之友陳述敦促美國最高法院維持科羅拉多州上訴法院 2014 年的裁決，即 Masterpiece Cakeshop 非法歧視一對同性戀伴侶.

本案涉及大衛·馬林斯和查理·克雷格。 2012年，他們和查理的母親一起前往傑作蛋糕店（Masterpiece Cakeshop）訂購結婚蛋糕。蛋糕店老闆傑克·菲利普斯告訴他們，他不能出售結婚蛋糕，因為根據他的宗教信仰，他只能向異性伴侶出售結婚蛋糕。

大衛和查理向科羅拉多州民權委員會提起了訴訟，委員會認定該麵包店違反了科羅拉多州的反歧視法。麵包店並未否認其拒絕為尋求結婚蛋糕的同性伴侶提供服務的政策，並辯稱其基於宗教和言論自由的理由擁有憲法賦予的權力。

同性戀者反歧視聯盟和全國同性戀者權利聯盟提交的簡報指出，像科羅拉多州這樣的反歧視法“旨在確保公民能夠獲得併平等享受充分參與公民生活的基本要素：獲得住房、工作和公共設施”，而該麵包店尋求的反歧視法豁免“將影響到 LGBT 人士的生活，並傷害到他們的孩子、家人和朋友”。

該麵包店尋求的豁免「將損害公共住宿法的迫切目標，這些法律的製定基於這樣的認識：它們所禁止的歧視既剝奪了個人的尊嚴，也剝奪了社會廣泛參與政治、經濟和文化生活的權利。我們敦促法院駁回這項將商業企業因個人屬於特定群體而歧視其的新權利憲法化的規則。」

作為一個國家，我們很久以前就決定，開放給公眾的企業應該以平等的條件向所有人開放，包括女同性戀、男同性戀、雙性戀或跨性別者。任何人都不應該僅僅因為身份而被拒之門外、被拒絕服務、被解僱或被趕出家門。

該案由美國公民自由聯盟 (ACLU) 提起，法庭之友陳述書是在 Pierce Atwood LLP 的協助下撰寫的。

部落格

家 » 國家/聯邦 » 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 » 國家/聯邦 » 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 » 國家/聯邦 » 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 多伊訴川普案, 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 motions to dismiss the case and oppose the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, 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 珍妮佛（Jennifer Levi），同性戀反歧視聯盟（GLAD）跨性別權利計畫主任. “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 法律總監. “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 多伊訴川普案 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, 斯托克曼訴川普案, 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 多伊訴川普案 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.

斯托克曼訴川普案

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 42

GLAD and NCLR are co-counsel in 加州平等組織‘s lawsuit challenging the transgender military ban, 斯托克曼訴川普案. 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 初步禁令動議 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 多伊訴川普案, 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 斯托克曼訴川普案 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. 閱讀更多.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss on November 6. A hearing was scheduled in 斯托克曼訴川普案 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 被拒絕 the Government’s motion to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction.

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

LIST OF CASE DOCUMENTS

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

內褲

Filing November 6, 2017

Original Supporting Declarations

原告：

Former Top Military Leaders:

Medical Expert:

Declaration of George Richard Brown, MD

Government’s Response

部落格

家 » 國家/聯邦 » 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.

多伊訴川普案

家 » 國家/聯邦 » Page 42

Victory: On January 25, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order lifting the ban on transgender military service. Since the outgoing administration began to enforce the ban in April 2019, dedicated transgender service members have been threatened with discharge, and qualified transgender Americans have been barred from enlisting, participating in ROTC, or attending military academies. Read the full statement at notransmilitaryban.org.

Update August 24, 2018 – Federal District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly today issued a ruling ordering the Trump administration to disclose information about its decision to ban otherwise qualified transgender troops from military service in 多伊訴川普案, GLAD and NCLR’s case challenging the Trump administration’s transgender military ban.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly also denied both parties’ motions for full resolution of the case. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly said that the government has improperly refused to produce documents related to its decision to reverse existing policy and exclude transgender people from military service. 閱讀更多

Update August 6, 2018 – 法官科琳·科拉爾-科特利今天駁回了川普政府駁回 NCLR 和 GLAD 案件的動議 多伊訴川普案, 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. 閱讀更多

Update June 22, 2018 – GLAD and NCLR filed our reply in support of our Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment 在 多伊訴川普案. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly rules in favor of the plaintiffs, that decision would permanently block the Trump-Pence transgender military ban from ever taking effect. Today’s filing rebuts the administration’s attempt to “blinker reality and recast the Mattis Plan as something other than what it plainly is: a blueprint to ensure that no transgender individuals serve in our Nation’s Armed Forces ‘in any capacity.’” The plaintiffs’ reply is the last 在一系列文件中這必須在法官科拉爾-科特利決定是否可以發布永久裁決阻止禁令之前發生。

閱讀更多

Update May 11, 2018 – Transgender military ban plaintiffs in 多伊訴川普案 提交了 簡易判決交叉動議 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ motion asserts that 無可爭議的事實 show the ban, including the March 23 Mattis implementation policy, violates their Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and that the court should provide permanent declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Trump-Pence ban from ever being implemented.

Plaintiffs also filed separate motions opposing the administration’s motions to dismiss the case and to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction 由美國哥倫比亞特區地方法院地區法官科琳·科拉爾-科特利於 2017 年 10 月 30 日發布。

Supporting Declarations Filed May 11, 2018:

Declaration of Josh Safer, MD, FACP, President of the United States Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH)

Declaration of George R. Brown, MD, DFAPA

Declaration of Brad Carson, former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Declaration of Lauren Milgroom, in support of the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

Key arguments from the plaintiffs’ May 11, 2018 filings:

川普和彭斯的跨性別軍人禁令不合理地排除了符合條件的跨性別軍人，損害了軍事準備。
The Trump administration’s March 23 “Mattis Plan” excludes transgender people from service based on their transgender status, rather than on any medical basis.
「馬蒂斯計畫」與川普總統在推特上發布的對跨性別者服役的絕對禁令如出一轍，儘管該計畫聲稱對以出生性別服役的跨性別者「例外」。正如要求穆斯林只有在放棄信仰的情況下才能服兵役的政策是禁止穆斯林服役一樣，要求跨性別者以出生性別服役的政策也是禁止跨性別者服役的政策。這也與先前失敗的論點類似，該論點認為，將婚姻限制在男女伴侶範圍內的法律並不歧視同性戀者，因為同性戀者可以與異性結婚。該論點已被法院一致駁回。
川普政府透過調查取得的文件顯示，「馬蒂斯計畫」的製定過程，其目的正是製定一項與川普全面禁止跨性別服役政策相符的政策。該計劃非但沒有提供區別對待跨性別者的正當理由，反而依賴性別刻板印像以及對跨性別者角色和能力的籠統概括。
基於群體的籠統概括而將符合條件的候選人排除在服役之外是不合理的。例如，憂鬱症、焦慮症和自殺在白人中比黑人更常見，但軍隊並沒有禁止白人服役。女性患焦慮症的可能性是男性的兩倍，但軍隊並沒有禁止女性服役。
Defendants’ unit cohesion arguments boil down to a claim that “simply by existing as such, transgender people undermine sex-based standards.” If “that claim were sufficient to justify barring transgender people from military service, it would also justify their exclusion from any, and all, institutions that maintain sex-based criteria for facilities, including schools, workplaces, public accommodations, and beyond”—something courts across the country have repeatedly dismissed.

A straight line from President Trump’s tweets to the “Mattis Plan” to implement the ban

(page from the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts)

Read more on this filing. (閱讀全文…)

部落格

家 » 國家/聯邦 » 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.