The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco today rebuffed another attempt by the Trump administration to implement its plan to ban transgender people from serving openly in the U.S. military.
The administration had asked for a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court in December 2017 in a case brought by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN, Karnoski v. Trump, and joined by the state of Washington. The stay, affirmed last month, blocks implementation of the trans ban and enables trans people to continue enlisting in the military.
The 9th Circuit ruled that the stay requested by the government “would upend, rather than preserve, the status quo,” which currently allows transgender people to serve in the military, according to a statement released today by Lambda Legal. The Trump administration had asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the injunction while it appealed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington’s April 13 ruling, which affirmed an earlier preliminary injunction and barred implementation of the transgender military ban.
The Trump administration had claimed that its “new” trans ban, released March 23, passed muster. But the court said the “new” plan was really a revamped version of the old plan and that it threatened the same constitutional violations. The court also found that the effort to ban trans people from military service must meet the most demanding level of scrutiny because it clearly targets transgender people.
The case is on track to go to trial in April 2019.
Staff Sergeant Cathrine Schmid, a transgender woman in the U.S. military, noted, “Seven courts across the country have considered this so-called plan, and seven courts have recognized that there is no defensible reason to bar transgender Americans from serving our nation. Being transgender has no impact on my ability to perform my duties.
“I’m grateful that the courts to date have recognized the value in our service, and I look forward to the day when we can put this argument behind us and focus on what’s really important — the accomplishment of our mission, and the welfare of our service members,” Schmid said.
Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn added, “The Ninth Circuit, much like the six other courts to have considered the proposed policy, has recognized it for what it is — blatant and impermissible discrimination. The court rejected the government’s attempt to ‘upend’ the status quo, as well as the lives of transgender people serving and seeking to serve our country.
“It has been one year since President Trump announced via tweet his plan to bar transgender people from the military, and in that year four district courts and, now three courts of appeal have blocked its implementation,” Renn continued. “What more evidence does the administration need before it abandons this discriminatory and harmful scheme to prevent brave and qualified transgender people from serving their country?”
And OutServe-SLDN Legal Director Peter Perkowski said, “Every court ruling has been consistent and unequivocal: The ban on transgender military service is discrimination, no matter how it’s phrased and no matter the myriad ways the administration has tried to cloak its intent.
In the lawsuit, Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN represent nine individual plaintiffs — six currently serving members of the armed services and three individuals seeking to enlist — and three organizational plaintiffs: the Human Rights Campaign, Seattle-based Gender Justice League and the American Military Partner Association, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of their transgender members harmed by the ban.
Read the ruling and other decisions and filings in the case here.
