https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/transgender-ban-military-supreme-court.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/scotus-transgender-ban/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...deo.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bfba89618459
Get ready for screaming from the usual suspects, Wu, Shrek & Donkey, and Zianna
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/politics/scotus-transgender-ban/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...deo.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bfba89618459
NYT article dijo:WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday revived the Trump administration’s policy of barring most transgender people from serving in the military. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices temporarily allowed the ban to go into effect while cases challenging it move forward.
The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s five conservative members in the majority and its four liberal members in dissent.
The administration had also asked the justices to hear immediate appeals from trial court rulings blocking the policy. The court turned down those requests without comment.
The policy, announced on Twitter by President Trump and refined by the defense secretary at the time, Jim Mattis, generally prohibits people identifying with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. It makes exceptions for several hundred transgender people already serving openly and for those willing to serve “in their biological sex.”
The Supreme Court granted stays of two other injunctions, issued by Federal District Court judges in California and Washington State, both in the Ninth Circuit.
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, had argued that the stays were needed to address a troubling phenomenon.
“It is with great reluctance that we seek such emergency relief in this court,” Mr. Francisco wrote. “Unfortunately, this case is part of a growing trend in which federal district courts, at the behest of particular plaintiffs, have issued nationwide injunctions, typically on a preliminary basis, against major policy initiatives.”
“Such injunctions previously were rare, but in recent years they have become routine,” he wrote. “In less than two years, federal courts have issued 25 of them, blocking a wide range of significant policies involving national security, national defense, immigration and domestic issues.”
Mr. Francisco did not ask the justices to address a separate injunctionfrom a federal trial judge in Maryland, but the Supreme Court’s action on Tuesday will presumably cause lower courts to stay that one, too.
Advocates for transgender rights welcomed the court’s decision not to hear immediate appeals from trial court rulings blocking the policy.
“In declining to hear these cases, the Supreme Court saw through the administration’s contrived efforts to gin up a national crisis,” said Jennifer Levi, director of the Transgender Rights Project of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders.
“Unfortunately,” she added, “the court’s stay of the lower courts’ preliminary orders means that courageous transgender service members will face discharges while challenges to the ban go forward. The Trump administration’s cruel obsession with ridding our military of dedicated and capable service members because they happen to be transgender defies reason and cannot survive legal review.”
The policy is complicated, and there is some dispute about its precise impact and timing. Broadly speaking, transgender people already openly serving may continue to serve once the injunctions are lifted. But those who seek to transition or serve openly after that happens risk discharge.
The Supreme Court’s rules say it will review a federal trial court’s ruling before an appeals court has spoken “only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this court.”
he wrote, “an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the nation’s armed forces.”
He told the justices that prompt action was required to ensure that the Supreme Court could rule before its term ends in June. The alternative, he said, was to defer Supreme Court arguments in the matter to the term that starts in October, with a decision probably not coming until 2020.
But lawyers for current and prospective members of the military challenging the policy said there was no need to upend the status quo while the case proceeded.
“Transgender people have been serving openly in all branches of the United States military since June 2016, including on active duty in combat zones,” their brief said. “Transgender individuals have been permitted to enlist in the military since January 2018.”
“The government has presented no evidence that their doing so harms military readiness, effectiveness or lethality,” the brief said.
The hundreds of people grandfathered in under the new policy, the brief added, “cannot be squared with the government’s claims of urgency to eliminate all other transgender personnel.”
Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, welcomed the Supreme Court’s revival of the policy.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court granted stays in these cases, clearing the way for the policy to go into effect while litigation continues,” she said. “The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation.”
ADVERTISEMENT
In a statement released Tuesday, a Pentagon spokeswoman said the program was not a complete ban and that transgender troops would be treated with respect and dignity.
“It is critical,” Lt. Col. Carla M. Gleason said, that the Department of Defense “be permitted to implement personnel policies that it determines are necessary to ensure the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world.”
The department’s “proposed policy,” she said, “is based on professional military judgment and will ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the most lethal and combat effective fighting force in the world.”
Some veterans groups said the Supreme Court’s move will complicate the jobs of military commanders who lead transgender service members.
“Based on earlier policy, they’ve openly declared themselves transgender, and now we’re going to kick them out for being honest, only to possibly see this ban reversed at a future time,” said Jon Soltz, an Iraq war veteran who is now chairman of VoteVets.org, a liberal veterans advocacy group. “The Supreme Court has made it harder for every commander in the military, today. They’re literally going to have to look at some of the best troops we have and kick them out for being honest about who they are.”
Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center, a research and advocacy group that focuses on sexuality and the military, said the military officials retain discretion over personnel policies.
“While it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has allowed military discrimination to be reinstated, it’s critical to understand that the military is not required, and has no need, to reinstate the transgender ban, which would cause destabilizing whipsaws in personnel policy,” Mr. Belkin said.
“The Defense Department should not reinstate the transgender ban,” he said, “because it would undermine readiness, cause significant disruptions and uncertainty, deprive the military of much-needed talent, and wreak havoc with the lives and careers of the 14,700 transgender troops bravely protecting our nation’s security.”
Get ready for screaming from the usual suspects, Wu, Shrek & Donkey, and Zianna
