This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/federal-judge-blocks-white-house-policy-barring-transgender-troops.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Transgender Troops in Military Judge Blocks Trump’s Ban on Transgender Troops in Military
(about 4 hours later)
A United States District Court judge on Monday blocked a White House policy barring military service by transgender troops, noting that the policy did not appear to be based on facts, but instead on “a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally.” A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a White House policy barring military service by transgender troops, ruling that it was based on “disapproval of transgender people generally.”
President Trump announced in a series of tweets in July that American forces could not afford the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender troops, and said “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” A presidential memorandum released in August required all transgender service members to be discharged by March. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found the administration’s justification for the ban, which was set to take effect in March 2018, to be suspect and likely unconstitutional. She ruled that the military’s current policy should remain in place.
Transgender groups sued the administration in late August on behalf of transgender service members, arguing that the ban was discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to due process equal protection under the law. “There is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all,” the judge wrote in a strongly worded, 76-page ruling. “In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”
On Monday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the ban until the case was resolved, saying the effect of the order was to revert to the status quo. Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the White House’s proposed policies likely violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution, writing that “a number of factors — including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself — strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious.”
The judge — who was named to the court by President Bill Clinton — noted in her ruling that the changes in transgender policy were “not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally.” Monday’s ruling was seen as an encouraging step for supporters. It stops a plan to discharge all transgender troops, allows current transgender troops to re-enlist and permits transgender recruits to join the military starting in January.
The ruling allows transgender troops to join the military and re-enlist, pending the outcome of the case, but leaves in place a White House provision that prohibits federal spending on sex reassignment surgery for troops. “She basically wiped the slate clean,” said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for Lesbian Rights who represented the plaintiffs, adding that while the ruling could be appealed, he was confident that it effectively marked the end of the ban because the judge said it violated the Constitution.
Supporters of transgender troops, noted that the injunction was temporary, but were optimistic. Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not impose an injunction on the ban on sex reassignment surgery because she said it did not apply to any of the plaintiffs. But the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that in blocking the entire policy, the ruling effectively shelved the ban on sex reassignment surgery as well.
“The court has clearly recognized the Trump administration is discriminating. We hope this is the beginning of the whole policy being overturned,” said Matt Thorn, executive director of the advocacy group OutServe. “Hopefully the White House learns the Constitution doesn’t allow you to do this kind of thing.” President Trump announced in a series of Twitter messages in July that American forces could not afford the “tremendous medical costs and disruption” of transgender troops, and said “the United States Government will not accept or allow them to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” A presidential memorandum released in August required all transgender service members to be discharged starting in March 2018.
Conservatives have pushed to curtail transgender policies since a longstanding ban on transgender troops was lifted in 2016. In June some Republicans in Congress unsuccessfully sought to force a ban on sex reassignment surgery by attaching it to the annual military spending bill. The announcement blindsided many in the military, which had been moving ahead with plans to integrate transgender troops, based on a 2016 study commissioned by the military that found that allowing transgender people to serve openly would “have minimal impact on readiness and health care costs” for the Pentagon. It estimated that health care costs would rise $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year, representing an almost unnoticeable 0.04 to 0.13 percent increase in spending. The study also projected “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness or readiness.”
A few weeks later, when President Trump announced the new policy on Twitter, he went farther, banning transgender service members entirely. Top military officials were caught completely off guard, and many were reportedly dismayed at the new policy. Civil rights groups immediately sued the administration on behalf of transgender service members, arguing that the ban was discriminatory and violated their constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law. A number of lawsuits are still pending.
The government had asked that the case be dismissed, but Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied the motion, writing that while “perhaps compelling in the abstract,” the government’s arguments for dismissal “wither away under scrutiny.” Judge Kollar-Kotelly was nominated to a lower court in the District of Columbia by President Ronald Reagan and was named to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.
The suit was filed by GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of five unnamed transgender women serving in the Coast Guard, Army and Air Force. Many of the women had served for years as men and had been deployed to war zones before coming out to commanders when the ban was lifted in 2016. One is a few years from retirement, according to court documents. Another told her commander she wanted to keep serving, but would resign if the military moved to forcibly discharge her.
“Big, huge news today,” said Lt. Cmdr. Blake Dremann, a Navy supply corps officer who is transgender and is the director of Sparta, an L.G.B.T. military group with more than 650 active-duty members. “A lot of people’s lives were put on hold. They thought their careers were ending. This means we can continue to serve with honor, as we have been doing.”
Petty Officer Eva Kerry, 24, who is transgender and is training to operate nuclear reactors, said the ruling lifted an obsessive dread over the impending end of a Navy career she loves. “I remain optimistic that the Constitution I swore an oath to will continue to protect the rights of all Americans,” she said on Monday.
The decision is the latest in a series of controversial White House policies halted by the courts, including limiting travel from predominantly Muslim countries and withholding federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cities. Asked for comment, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the Justice Department was reviewing the ruling.
“We disagree with the court’s ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps,” the department said in a statement, calling the lawsuit “premature” because the military was still reviewing the policy.
The decision is a blow for social conservatives, who have pushed to curtail transgender policies since the ban was lifted in 2016. In June, some Republicans in Congress unsuccessfully sought to force a ban on sex reassignment surgery by attaching it to the annual military spending bill. In response, Mr. Trump made a far bolder move to ban transgender service members entirely.
At the time, Representative Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from Missouri, openly praised what she said was the president’s willingness to put national security first. On Monday, her press secretary said she would not comment on the ruling.
Democrats in Congress, who in September introduced legislation to protect transgender troops from discharge, were quick to mark a victory.
“Federal courts have again beat back the sinister specter of discrimination bred within the Trump White House,” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said in a statement. “This court order will allow our transgender troops to continue serving based on their ability to fight, train, and deploy — regardless of gender identity.”
Logan Ireland, an Air Force staff sergeant who was not involved in the lawsuits, said he and other transgender troops were hopeful but cautious. He said the president could still take steps to discharge them.
More than anything, the Afghanistan veteran, who leads security forces, said he hoped the end of the ban would allow him to concentrate more on his work.
“We want to go back to serving,” he said. “There are troops that work under me, there is work to be done. We want to do it. After all, we are here for our country, not who sits in the White House.”