The Doe plaintiffs
argue that the Trump-Pence transgender military ban singles out
transgender Americans—putting them into a solitary class and subjecting
them to different standards than every other servicemember—on no
legitimate basis. And because policies that discriminate against
transgender people require heightened scrutiny by the court, plaintiffs
argue that the Trump administration cannot scramble to invent reasoning
now, after the ban has been issued, in an attempt to justify the ban
during litigation.
“There
is no legitimate justification for barring transgender people from
military service based on who they are, rather than their ability to do
the job. The government cannot make up reasons after the fact to justify
a policy that is based on prejudice, not genuine military concerns,”
said Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director.
“This
filing brings us one step closer to a final resolution of this case.
Transgender servicemembers have continued to put their lives on the line
for this country while having to defend themselves from attack from
this administration. They deserve honor and respect, not discharge
papers,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director.
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.
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.