Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LGBT
Related: About this forumThe 9th Circuit's Latest Trans Troops Ban Ruling Looks Like a Loss for Trans Rights, but It's Actual
Source: Slate
The 9th Circuits Latest Trans Troops Ban Ruling Looks Like a Loss for Trans Rights, but Its Actually a Win
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
JUNE 14, 20194:21 PM
On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court ruling declaring that Donald Trumps ban on transgender military service is unconstitutional. Its decision might seem like a setback for the service members challenging the policybut its actually a qualified victory for transgender rights with sweeping ramifications in other cases.
After Trump announced his ban on trans military service via tweet in July 2017, four federal judges issued injunctions prohibiting its implementation. All four courts found the policy to be an unjustified violation of transgender Americans equal protection rights. In January, however, the Supreme Court lifted two of those injunctions by a 54 vote while the government appeals the rulings. The other two injunctions were eventually lifted in light of SCOTUSs order, allowing the Pentagon to implement the ban. Meanwhile, appeals courts have continued to mull the policys constitutionality.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals finally issued its decision on the matter Friday, vacating U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechmans 2018 ruling against the ban. This outcome in Karnoski v. Trump is no surprise, since the Supreme Court already lifted Pechmans injunction. The 9th Circuit found that Pechman hadnt properly assessed whether former Defense Secretary James Mattis final implementation plan shored up the legality of the ban by providing the considered military judgment absent from Trumps impromptu tweets and the resulting scramble to rationalize them. Its decision in Karnoski also found that Pechman had improperly applied strict scrutiny, thereby giving insufficient deference to the commander in chief.
But the 9th Circuit didnt stop there. It went on to explain that the trans ban does discriminate against transgender peoplea fact contested by the administration, which insists that the policy only discriminates against people with gender dysphoria. (This distinction makes no sense.) Moreover, the court found that discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes sex-based discrimination and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. That means anti-trans policies must be supported by an exceedingly persuasive justification, one not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. It directed Pechman to apply this test to the trans troops ban.
What exceedingly persuasive justification might lie behind this policy? The Trump administration asserts that transgender service members undermine readiness, erode reasonable expectations of privacy, and impose disproportionate costs. These claims are demonstrably false. We know that because trans troops could already serve openly when Trump announced his ban, and none of these problems arose. These excuses were cooked up by anti-LGBTQ advocates in response to litigation against the ban, precisely what intermediate scrutiny forbids. The Trump administrations justifications cannot be exceedingly persuasive if they are ungrounded in reality, discredited by experts, and disproved by experience.
-snip-
By MARK JOSEPH STERN
JUNE 14, 20194:21 PM
On Friday, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court ruling declaring that Donald Trumps ban on transgender military service is unconstitutional. Its decision might seem like a setback for the service members challenging the policybut its actually a qualified victory for transgender rights with sweeping ramifications in other cases.
After Trump announced his ban on trans military service via tweet in July 2017, four federal judges issued injunctions prohibiting its implementation. All four courts found the policy to be an unjustified violation of transgender Americans equal protection rights. In January, however, the Supreme Court lifted two of those injunctions by a 54 vote while the government appeals the rulings. The other two injunctions were eventually lifted in light of SCOTUSs order, allowing the Pentagon to implement the ban. Meanwhile, appeals courts have continued to mull the policys constitutionality.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals finally issued its decision on the matter Friday, vacating U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechmans 2018 ruling against the ban. This outcome in Karnoski v. Trump is no surprise, since the Supreme Court already lifted Pechmans injunction. The 9th Circuit found that Pechman hadnt properly assessed whether former Defense Secretary James Mattis final implementation plan shored up the legality of the ban by providing the considered military judgment absent from Trumps impromptu tweets and the resulting scramble to rationalize them. Its decision in Karnoski also found that Pechman had improperly applied strict scrutiny, thereby giving insufficient deference to the commander in chief.
But the 9th Circuit didnt stop there. It went on to explain that the trans ban does discriminate against transgender peoplea fact contested by the administration, which insists that the policy only discriminates against people with gender dysphoria. (This distinction makes no sense.) Moreover, the court found that discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes sex-based discrimination and is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. That means anti-trans policies must be supported by an exceedingly persuasive justification, one not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. It directed Pechman to apply this test to the trans troops ban.
What exceedingly persuasive justification might lie behind this policy? The Trump administration asserts that transgender service members undermine readiness, erode reasonable expectations of privacy, and impose disproportionate costs. These claims are demonstrably false. We know that because trans troops could already serve openly when Trump announced his ban, and none of these problems arose. These excuses were cooked up by anti-LGBTQ advocates in response to litigation against the ban, precisely what intermediate scrutiny forbids. The Trump administrations justifications cannot be exceedingly persuasive if they are ungrounded in reality, discredited by experts, and disproved by experience.
-snip-
Read more: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/trump-transgender-troops-ban-appeals-court.html
______________________________________________________________________
Related: 18-35347 Karnoski v. Trump
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 831 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post