The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Supreme Court Stays District Court Injunction Against Trump Administration Policy on Transgender Individuals in the Military
The Trump Administration will be able to exclude transgender individuals from the military pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
Today, without opinion, the Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction barring implementation of President Trump's Executive Order on military readiness that would bar individuals from serving in the military other than in accordance with their biological sex. The order notes that Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have denied the federal government's stay request.
The Trump Administration has appealed the district court's order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Parallel litigation is ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The outcome of these case is likely to be influenced (if not controlled) by the Court's pending decision in Skrmetti, as that case will almost certainly answer whether classifications based upon one's gender identity or on being transgender are subject to any form of heightened scrutiny, and whether courts should presume that such classifications are based upon impermissible bias or animus. So depending on how the Court ultimately resolves Skrmetti, this litigation may or may not return to One First Street.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why would the ban even be controversial?
If you can get into it, you can back out of it.
The controveesial part is it's needlessly and deliberately mean.
What is mean about excluding individuals with mental issues?
Military readiness and effectiveness comes first
Lots of other medical conditions gets you excluded -
Assuming it is a mental illness -- and I'd like to see some data on that before I take your word for it -- the question is whether it is a specific mental illness that disqualifies someone from being a good soldier. And I don't see that this one does. As Colonel Potter once said about Corporal Klinger, I wouldn't want a whole platoon of him but he does his job.
The question isn't whether you could somehow make do with them if you had to. It's whether you should go to the trouble when you have no need to.
Military recruitment is doing great right now, they don't NEED the trouble.
And, yes, soldiers of questionable sanity and elevated medical problems/costs ARE extra trouble.
A Woman of No Importance 26 minutes ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Assuming it is a mental illness -- and I'd like to see some data on that before I take your word for it -
Even WPATH admits its a mental illness
Well this experiment has been conducted in countless other sectors business sector/education sector/entertainment etc etc etc and it has resulted in chaos each time with detrimental effects on the bottom line, detrimental effects on education if from nothing else the chaos and distraction it causes and turning children and parents against each other, And bomb after bomb for woke entertainment and the decline of entertainment itself as a concept as the drama turns the industry into an arena where people simply battle against each other rather than try to make good stuff.. Not to mention the general chaos such as the uptick in children being permanently mutilated with drugs and surgery,
So I'm going to have to call BS on your implication that society has been completely unaffected and we're all just playing hopscotch like we were in the 80s just with trans serving openly.
They have to spend hours every day dilating their holes.
Literally.
Corporal Klinger was explicit -- he hated the Army and wanted out.
ADHD can disqualify you.
Just in case you were unaware.
“effectiveness”
I would pay good money to see you say this to one of the Plaintiff’s faces. Being awarded a Bronze star not effective enough for you?
I cannot overstate my contempt for people like you who say things like this.
Estagon - thanks for expressing your contempt rational thought, common sense and basic logic.
its not reasuring that you support degradion of military effectiveness.
NO, Krayt, just the opposite. What do Muslim suicide terrorists think when they find out this was one of Biden's prize appointments
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2164236/sam-brinton-during-trevor-projects-trevorlive.jpg
Because there is no reason for it other then being cruel. Trans people serve now and it is just fine. Like all previous integrations in the military (blacks, women, LGB) conservatives predicted degradation of the military and that never happened.
It is sad that the Republican hatred of LGBT is stronger then their "love" for the military.
Yeah, they'll run a program celebrating the 'successful' integration of women with no issues whatsoever. And then in the very next program will be an expose about the horrid abuse women have to endure in the military with evil men cracking sex jokes in front of them they don't like and they're on Orca crying their eyes out to sad music and swaying pastel backgrounds.
The peckercheckers here are conspicuously overlooking that Judge Settle permitted development of a full evidentiary record before issuing the challenged preliminary injunction. This included the opportunity for the parties to cross examine any witnesses. The
government declined to do so. (Slip. op, p. 20, fn. 13.)
The District Court opined at footnote 2:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344431/gov.uscourts.wawd.344431.104.0_3.pdf
Transgender service members have served openly during part of the Obama administration under Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and during the Biden administration under Secretary Lloyd Austin. If this caused any deleterious effect on the armed services, the DOD here had a full and fair opportunity to adduce admissible evidence thereof.
That you're getting mad shows why the military does not need to bring such a distracting and divisive issue into their ranks. If trans people want to be in the military they can do so without demanding every one pay attention to their mental illness. Nobody's 'checking peckers' but they sure don't appreciate it when you're flailing yours around in the girls bathroom.
I'm not getting mad. I'm pointing out piss poor lawyering by the Trump DOD.
You claim, AmosArch, that "If trans people want to be in the military they can do so without demanding every one pay attention to their mental illness." That is an outright lie. Under the challenged executive order, transgender folks are not permitted to serve at all.
Is it difficult to comment with pants on fire?
If you are a male and serve as one . Nobody is going to brainscan you to make sure you don't have a secret delusion that you are a woman. That's fine. What is not fine is even a penny in accommodations or one second of lost time mentally adjusting to someones delusion. If you thought you were a bird and started chirping and grafting feathers onto your skin they wouldn't put up with it even if on paper a bunch of lawyers could make it seem like you were still capable of doing your duty so same expectation here. If you are looking for a lifestyle to freely express yourself the military isn't/shouldn't be the place to go.
Why do you pretend that you can only identify a transgender by only inspecting their genitals? Have you never seen one in IRL? Or heard one? Or smelt one? You can smell them a mile away.
Molly , your hate is all that is on display.
If you know any Muslims ask them how this great achievement of Biden's was seen in the rest of the world
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2164236/sam-brinton-during-trevor-projects-trevorlive.jpg
All the studies esp the meta-analyses say that the trans population is sick and that surgery has made them WORSE.
Finally, SCOTUS puts an end to the temporary madness.
Temporarily.
Biden was giddy with delight at being a source of wisdom and love when these 2 were brought into high office
https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/3aeb27a24b457570ef79af3241c7100a
And then for Easter !! He annunced Transgender Day of Visibility
If anyuone supports Biden , they are in my book pure fool.
As for poorly-spoken cackling hag Kamala
: She had performed marriage rites for gay couples right after such ceremonies began in California, started a hate crimes unit dedicated to protecting queer teenagers, and even spoke at her city’s third annual Trans March, where she was honored as having “championed transgender rights.”
The US needs so much help and all she can do is talk about suffering trans like Dylan Mulvaney. So ecstatic the fool lost the election.
I think that Skrmetti is likely to address whether discrimination based on transgender status is a variety of sex discrimination, in which case intermediate scrutiny would apply. It may or may not address whether gender identity is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. The District Court found that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class. L.W. ex rel. Williams v. Skrmetti, 679 F.Supp.3d 668, 690 (M.D. Tenn. 2023). The Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, disagreed. L.W. ex rel. Williams v. Skrmetti, 83 F.4th 460, 486 (6th Cir. 2023).
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. Do you really think it is reasonable for a court to recognize a class of mentally troubled individuals who want to serve in the military and than order the commander in chief to admit these gender disturbed individuals into active military service? Do the federal courts command the military? Maybe President Jackson was wrong.
I'm not a mental health care professional. I wonder, however, if a fixation with other people's genitalia qualifies as a mental illness.
The peckercheckers do seem obsessed with it.
One doesn't have to be a biologist to know there are two genders. But I forgot you're not the best one to answer that given that TDS is also a mental illness. Don't be embarrassed to seek help.
P
What about women’s breast size or hair color, and the moral valence of possible change thereto?
Do they teach this silly "Turn it around" rhetoric in seminars? Trust me, it doesn't actually work.
How can it be sex discrimination when it applies equally to men and women?
Half the time even trans defenders agree gender isn't biological sex. Are you walking that position back?
It'd be one thing if this was about actual biological intersexuals but the vast majority of transgenders are the 'I feel I am' variety. IE a mental illness.
That's why the Court needs to close the door with Skrmetti that the alphabet activists think it opened with Bostock. Mistakenly, many think Bostock was about transgender rights, when it was really about sex stereotyping. Which is why it may ultimately be the death of the trans activists hopes.
Gorsuch made clear that expecting the sexes to wear certain kinds of clothing or present a certain way was discriminatory. What was found illegal under Bostock was exactly what the trans activists insist make you a (trans) man or woman: how you dress or present.
If an individual wants to go beyond that, then you are a medical liability to the military. Needing regular hormone therapy is every bit a problem as a diabetic needing insulin in a foxhole.
If they want to limit trans service to truly non-combat billets like the chair force, I'd be fine with that. Activists rarely accept half a loaf, so I won't hold my breath.
I don't think Bostock was about sex stereotyping:
Um...
"R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes fired Aimee Stephens, who presented as a male when she was hired, after she informed her employer that she planned to 'live and work full-time as a woman.' "
What is live and work full-time as a woman? The change in appearance, after being hired, was sex stereotyping. That's the but-for discrimination, expecting a biological male to present a certain way, or NOT present a certain way.
It was the employee who wanted to follow female stereotypes.
Going on from the opinion:
There is no mention of appearance in either the employer's statement nor in Gorsuch's opinion (as I quoted above). Moreover, Gorsuch only mentions sex stereotyping twice in the opinion, once where he says it is not the same as what happened in this case:
I'm not seeing how, "You'll freak out our customers!" isn't a valid reason for letting an employee go, especially in a very customer service oriented business.
Frankly, I've been in more funeral homes than I like, and that is NOT a time when people want to be forced to deal with this crap.
Such would eviscerate anti-discrimination law. "Our customers don't like black people." Of course, if one is okay with that outcome, then there's no issue there. But that's why the argument isn't generally accepted.
If the logic in Bostock is followed, discrimination is on the individual level even if mean as a group are not favored or disfavored. That is, but for being a man (or woman) a transgender person would not have been fired and could serve in the military.
I wonder if courts will apply the logic of Bostock to people like Rachael Dolezal and Jessica Krug. Probably not.
Are people like Dolezal and Krug being discriminated against?
They wouldn't have been fired if they were black and Hispanic.
They were fired for lying about their ethnicities. If instead they said they identified as black or Hispanic even though their ethnic background was otherwise, and were fired as a result, then the cases would be similar to Bostock.
You think Bostock allows an employer to fire a man who says, "I'm a woman." for lying about his sex?
No, because "woman" could refer to sex or gender identity. But, if he claims his reproductive biology is female, he could be fired under Bostock.
So why can't saying "I'm black" refer to racial identity in the same sense?
You've agreed that someone who says they identify as black while saying that their ethnic background is otherwise isn't lying, what if they just say that they identify as black without specifying their ethnic background? Or what if instead of saying they identify as black, they say, "I'm black?"
Is someone who is adopted into an Irish-American family lying if he says, "I'm Irish?"
You could. But, I don't think that was what Dolezal and Krug were fired for.
Skrmetti sex discrimination - The leftist argument is typical of the distortions and mental gymnastics that dominate the left.
The Tennessee ban is not based on sex. It is based on bad medical outcomes with individuals with different biological characteristics. Very much a distinct difference.
My money is on the Court only assuming for the sake of argument that discrimination against trans people is sex discrimination in Skrmetti (and uphold the law). Could be the same in the military case as well since such decisions usually get deference.
The District Court in Skrmetti applied intermediate scrutiny; the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals applied rational basis analysis.
If SCOTUS were to decide (or even to assume) that intermediate scrutiny applies, they theoretically could opine that the challenged Tennessee statutes pass intermediate scrutiny. I think however that the more likely disposition in that event would be a remand to the Sixth Circuit for further analysis applying intermediate scrutiny.
Skremetti says you wanting to be a woman though you are a man is a sickness that 'Treatment' makes much worse. The medical outcomes are enough to make Skremetti common sense : a troubling list of risks from medical transition, including “infertility, sexual dysfunction, diminished bone density, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”
"as that case will almost certainly answer whether classifications based upon one's gender identity or on being transgender are subject to any form of heightened scrutiny,"
Some days I wonder why we even bothered defeating the ERA. The judiciary seem determined to proceed as if it had been ratified anyway.
Comical that Trump, who evaded the draft, presumes to dictate army life.
Comical that Biden, who evaded the draft, felt qualified to dictate army life.
Comical that Clinton, who evaded the draft, felt qualified to dictate army life.
Biden did not evade the draft.
Clinton did not evade the draft.
Clinton
https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/democrat/clinton/skeletons/draft.shtml
"Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve -- however, Clinton made every effort to avoid the draft prior to entering it."
What does this show? He applied for an exemption and was denied. And then his number never came up. When asked about it, he told the truth.
Biden
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fact-check-biden-received-multiple-draft-deferments-vietnam/5809482002/
Yes. We have a civilian at the head of the military by design.
And finding a way to avoid the draft is something multiple presidents over our history have done. Enough to target Trump on without that.
If it was WWII, I think Biden might have served.
“Enough to target Trump on without that”
You mean like when he referred to avoiding STDs in the 80’s as his own personal Vietnam?
A lot more than that.
"If it was WWII, I think Biden might have served."
Counterfactual heroism is the best heroism.
Well, he probably would have, but not voluntarily. He would have served during WWII because the draft board wouldn't have had much of a sense of humor.
"And finding a way to avoid the draft is something multiple presidents over our history have done. Enough to target Trump on without that."
Those over the age of 45 weren't drafted (considered too old for military service) even though they did have to register. I don't think the draft age actually went all the way up to 45.
Above and beyond that, there was
Class II-A: Deferred in support of national health, safety, or interest.
Initially a significant portion of Congress went to war, either called up with reserve units or enlisting directly after Pearl Harbor -- and someone made the decision they were needed in Congress and kicked them all out of the military.
If you were in a key job, e.g. building ships at Bath Iron Works, not only were you exempt from the draft but they wouldn't take you if you volunteered. Same thing with police and other essential services -- they got trimmed but you couldn't leave unless you could be replaced.
I doubt they would accept a POTUS, and memory is that there is a level above which (Cabinet?) members of the Executive can't be in the Reserves or Guard anymore. I'm not sure that Tulsi Gabbard is allowed to still be in the Reserves -- it might be worth checking.
"Biden did not evade the draft."
He sure did. High school and college jock got a convenient asthma diagnosis.
Not true.
Leave that "deny the easily documented" schtick to Nieporent.
It's like every single "liberal" / "progressive" commenter around here has morphed into Sarcastro...
Comical that you seem to have contempt not only for the principle of civilian control of the military but for the Constitution itself. How fascistic of you.
Thank YOU for your service Capt. Dan. Oh wait that's your sister who served.
Its funny cause a lot of the senior military leadership itself probably never fired a bullet or missile at the enemy. Many more even if they were technically involved in combat operations have never been in any real danger throughout their career let alone the level of danger of a Vietnam era infantry man slogging through the jungle.
If you're bemoaning lack of 'redblooded' military experience you would need to take a serious look at the military itself.
This is almost certainly not true, given the Global War on Terror with combat theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right now we probably have the most combat experienced senior officer corps since Vietnam. Maybe even more so since, unlike Vietnam, the entire military during the GWOT era was volunteer.
Because of course Biden's military service made him more qualified to dictate military life when he ... oh, wait.
And, oh by the way, Biden obtained five separate draft "deferments" by hiding in school, then finally got a conditional medical deferment for having had "asthma as a teenager". Trump got out of the draft for "bone spurs in his heels".
If by your definition Trump "evaded the draft", so did Biden.
Not what happened.
One might add that Biden never glorified himself as pro military. Trump forced West Point to rescind Covid restrictions so that he could deliver an address at their graduation. And then there was the desire for a big military parade.
No, that's exactly what happened, no matter how much you want to deny it.
And, yet again, the 250th anniversary of the US Army WAS going to be celebrated, regardless of whether Trump happened to be born on the same day. (One in 365 chance, not terribly long odds.) If he'd moved the celebration to not coincide with his birthday you'd just complain about that, and with more cause.
Was the 200th anniversary of the US Army celebrated with a big military parade?
Was Trump's last birthday in office celebrated with a big military parade?
I do sort of recall something of the sort. Mind you, I was only 16 at the time, and had my mind on other things. And there were a LOT of bicentennial things going on around then.
On the contrary, that's precisely what happened. It's even thoroughly documented and sourced on such arch-conservative sources as Wikipedia and Snopes.
For the record, even had he been drafted, Donald Trump would have never seen combat in Vietnam Born in 1946, he would have been inducted as an 18 year old in 1964 and been discharged in 1966.
US troops did not deploy in strength to Vietnam until 1965, with five divisions arriving that year (1st Marine Division, 3rd Marine Division, 1st Infantry Division, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), and 101st Airborne Division. Four out of five of those divisions were specialty units which you generally had to volunteer for. Only The Big Red One was a regular line infantry division.
"as an 18-year-old"
We don't know exactly when he would have been drafted or where he would have served.
A link above notes:
He received four student draft deferments while an undergraduate at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
And in the spring of 1968, he, too, received the "1-Y" classification — for bone spurs in his heels, per The New York Times.
The usual bit is that the "bone spurs" was a joke. I won't assume that. But, the time then would be 1968.
He damn well would have been sent in 1966. Look it up — all the 20 year olds that went.
Why is that comical? He didn't go in the seminary !!! like Gore
You say 'evaded' yet where is the proof
I believe this case has more to do with the President's constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief and the judiciary's attempt to infringe upon it. The military will not accept diabetics because it cannot guarantee a supply of insulin in all circumstances, such as an overseas deployment. Is it to guarantee uninterrupted hormone treatments? And this does not even wade into the more controversial psychological issues around transgenders. These are national security issues which should be decided by the President and his advisors, not the judiciary.
Exactly. They get special privileges just because they are deviants, and have mental issues. That is contrary to good order and discipline, which is important to the optimal readiness of the military to do their pledged duty and fight. The Biden Administration saw the military as part of a social experiment. The Trump Administration sees their major role to be protecting us from foreign enemies.
This case won’t even be close in the Supreme Court. The lower court was clearly attempting to interfere with the President’s Article II power and responsibility as the Commander in Chief of the military.
What is this "Article II" fetish you people have? The constitution assigns the authority to make rules for the military to Congress, not the president. The president is CinC, which means that he can decide who to order into combat and such; that does not give him the right to unilaterally decide who can be in the military.
(I don't recall this "How dare the courts try to interfere with the president's control of the military?" when antivaxxer loonies sued to overturn Biden's order that service members be vaccinated against COVID.)
"What is this "Article II" fetish you people have? "
1. If loving the Constitution is a fetish, then by all means call me a pervert.
2. Congress has delegated the authority to accept enlistments to the Secretaries of the armed forces, who work for the President.
According to several posters here, this is an "Article II power." Your theory and theirs can't both be correct; Congress cannot delegate authority it doesn't have.
Maybe you've never watched M*A*S*H. Because if you had, you would know that until he became company clerk after Radar's departure, Klinger wore a dress trying to get a Section 8 discharge. Which brings me to my question...
When exactly did the almighty Congress change any law that allowed Article II authorities to set such physical and mental standards?
Whataboutism.
As for your Congressional issue - it’s irrelevant here. Congress hasn’t mandated that transgendered can serve without prejudice. Maybe Congress could make that stick. Maybe not. Separation of Powers issues.
But here, we have the President, in his role as Commander-in-Chief, through his Secretary of Defense ordering that transgendered requiring hormones, surgical procedures, or other medical interventions, are out because they cannot be deployed. Same rule for diabetics - if you need medicine to stay healthy and fit for service, you are out of the military. If the service member’s unit is under fire, and the relief can bring in one thing - ammunition or gender affirming hormones (or even insulin), the Commander in Chief has determined that the choice will be ammunition.
No, vastly wrong. He is Commander in Chief and if he judges sick soldiers a risk to us and a provocation to the enemy, who can deny it.? Ask normal people. Captain Dylan Mulvaney
THis is a man
https://media.notthebee.com/articles/67d1938c26ab867d1938c26ab9.jpg
"The military will not accept diabetics because it cannot guarantee a supply of insulin in all circumstances, such as an overseas deployment."
They are NON DEPLOYABLE and trannies are as well.
For the very same medical reason.
Diabetics cannot even enlist or enter an officer training program.
DoD 6130.03, 6.24.b(1) lists "history of diabetes mellitus" as a disqualifying condition. Nothing about deployability exists as far as I can find.
I did find something from the USAF about diabetes.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1102837.pdf
From the slide deck it says:
* Little research exists regarding deployment and diabetes
* Deployment leads to increased physical demand
* Deployed locations may be austere
So this does affect whether one can be deployed. But it appears from the slides that if one's A1C is on target, prior to deployment, they will deploy someone with diabetes but recommend oral medications rather than insulin. So basically, they let T1Ds run very high the whole time they are deployed. And further, evaluate the duty required and whether it will put the solider at risk for lack of medical care.
Why would the same not apply to transgender soldiers? A) They can be denied enlistment and B) may not be deployed.
The non-deployability is essentially cheating, and not good for good order and discipline. Because, someone else will have to deploy in their place. You spend 10 years in the service, and no problems. Then we go to war, and your unit is called to fight. So you decide to become transgendered to avoid the risk, and stay states side, with air conditioning, warm showers, a decent bed, and decent food, while your old unit is now playing in the Sandbox, with none of those things. 120° heat, people trying to kill you, etc.
Agreed, I feel like they should have cited Austin v. Navy SEALs to make it clearer.
Given the cases saying that military recruitment passes heightened scrutiny, it’s not clear Skrmetti is even relevant.
"Given the cases saying that military recruitment passes heightened scrutiny, it’s not clear Skrmetti is even relevant."
The burden of justification of a challenged policy being upon the government under intermediate of strict scrutiny is hugely important. Judge Settle was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent holding that classifications based on transgender status warrant heightened or intermediate scrutiny, and that transgender is at least a quasi-suspect class. Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1200 (9th Cir. 2019); Doe v. Horne, 115 F.4th 1083, 1102 (9th Cir. 2024); Hecox v. Little, 104 F.4th 1061, 1079 (9th Cir. 2024), as amended (June 14, 2024). The government nevertheless failed to offer evidence supporting the executive order.
Why on earth should the Commander in Chief need to prove to some judge why not having mentally ill people who require medical treatments enlisted is important to the military?
Does one also have to prove to a judge that the sky is blue? Or the sun shines? Or water is wet?
This 'man' could be General Mulvaney if Biden had his way
https://media.notthebee.com/articles/67d1938c26ab867d1938c26ab9.jpg
Don't think so? Biden put this circus act in a very high office
This man is Rachel Levine. Ask any young adult in my neighborhood what they think of this
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/mh-6-1-levine-1-1622565722.jpg?crop=0.5xw:1xh;center,top&resize=640:*
Well, the Supreme held in Rostger v. Goldberg that the military can exclude women entirely, and in particular can exclude them from the draft. Since sex discrimination in its entirety passes intermediate scrutiny for military purposes, why should the small special subcategory of transgender get a different outcome from the main category of gender?
In military matters, the government meets its burden of justification simply by producing affidavits from generals thwt the position is important to the military. And that’s that. If the military says it’s an important interest, it’s an important interest. Judges can’t second-guess the military on military matters.
FInd some posts from Muslim terrorists about reactions to this military appointment and ask yourself "Does this encourage peace for our 'city set on a hill" ?
https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/mh-6-1-levine-1-1622565722.jpg?crop=0.5xw:1xh;center,top&resize=640:*
BIDEN WAS SO PROUD OF HIMSELF
Even if rational basis analysis applies, this executive order may fail even that deferential test. The order is chock full of hatemongering and bigotry against transgender service members. President Trump proclaimed that, “consistent with longstanding Department of Defense policy,” expressing a false “gender identity” conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life,” and that requiring others to recognize this “falsehood is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” The order declares:
When it came time to support this blather with admissible, supporting evidence, however, the government offered bupkis. The government contends that equity and the public interest are served by exclusion of transgender service members because the Commander in Chief has “determined” that, as a class, they lack honesty, humility, and integrity. The District Court's memorandum opinion, however, notes that "At oral argument, the government’s attorney confirmed there was “no” support in the record that transgender service members lack honesty, humility, or integrity." (Slip op. p. 5, fn.4.) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.344431/gov.uscourts.wawd.344431.104.0_3.pdf
If anyone knows about a lack a honesty, humility, and integrity, it is Donald Trump. As Bill Clinton said of Rep. Paul Ryan at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, "You gotta get one thing -- it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLAdKXk-tD8
"If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534 (1973); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634-635 (1996).
" President Trump proclaimed that, “consistent with longstanding Department of Defense policy,” expressing a false “gender identity” conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life,” and that requiring others to recognize this “falsehood is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”"
Sounds like the type of things people were saying about Rachael Dolezal and others who have a racial identity that is different from their race assigned at birth.
Doesn't sound at all like that. Sen Warren claimed to be Cherokee but that was shown to be false as would any tests on Rachel Dolezal. What you see as the answer was how pefectly white folk were called "Black' under the one-drop law that if even 1 of your 8 great grandparents you were Black !!! WE are talking about war, defense of the country, that is no place for sick people who further infuriate the enemy and dishearten our troops
"Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr., said in a statement at the time. "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage."
Those pull quotes hurt your case not help it. Those are all facts.
"If anyone knows about a lack a honesty, humility, and integrity, it is Donald Trump. As Bill Clinton said of Rep. Paul Ryan at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, "You gotta get one thing -- it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did!""
Oh the irony!
The problem is that the Court upheld excluding women from the draft. Why should the small category of transgender be different from the main category?
More fundamentally, the issue is whether combat troops can be effective as a fighting force. The reason for their being effective or ineffective doesn’t matter in the slightest. You may think it irrational for the earth to go around the sun rather than the sun go around the earth. But it does. You may think it irrational that human beings should need food to eat or be subject to disease. But they are. You may think it irrational that human beings sometimes hate and sometimes have taboos. But they do. If hate and tahoos render combat troops ineffective, the military is just as entitled to remove the source of hate to improve troops’ effectiveness as it is entitled to remove a source of disease. Rational in the sense of “how people ought to be” has nothing to do with it. In military matters, the military is entitled to deal with the world, and people, as they are, warts and all.
The kind of rational basis analysis that says that reason and rationality require people to be a certain why and if they aren’t it isn’t rational has no place in the military. The military can exclude things, and people, that make people feel uncomfortable enough to imterfere with their combat effectiveness, whatever the source of discomfort, and whether you think being uncomfortable with the source is a rational way for people to feel or not.
It may be bad policy. But it’s constitutional.
The case upholding military sex selection as constitutinal is Rostger v. Goldberg.
You would have posted a great comment but you said 'may' WHY?
I wonder about the government's litigation strategy. What if the powers that be removed gender dysphoria from the newest DSM? It would seem that their whole argument evaporates.
If it is not a mental illness, then no one has to pay for treatment.
"What if the powers that be removed gender dysphoria from the newest DSM?"
What if they did? Isn't that a parliament declaring that the earth is flat kind of argument? Or am I missing something?
If you read the pleadings, the entirety of the justification used by the administration is that these individuals suffer from a mental illness which causes a host of problems that make them unsuited for military service.
If that is no longer a thing, what happens to the justification? This isn't a fanciful thing. The powers that be removed homosexuality from the DSM many years ago.
But their changing the DSM doesn't make mental illness into sanity. Don't confuse the map and the territory.
Psychiatry is a highly politicized profession, they've been manipulating the DSM for political reasons for decades now.
You are missing everything. gender dysphoria didn't suddenly look normal to DSM , it was like homosexuality , a decision to make medicine cover for immorality.
"Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227)."
Is 'lust' to be taken out of the DSM 🙂
Is it not straight out of Hell to have 2 gay men raise a boy, no mother, lifelong ridicule, no role model for what it is to be a man
This is sickness
https://people.com/thmb/duouCMXZt-ogDVvDMlZD4tBxX_k=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(899x291:901x293)/Pete-Buttigieg-51a513e30c594bb09a397c97636747f5.jpgi
They wouldn't have an ICD-10 code, and thus can't force insurance companies or prisons or schools or businesses to pay for their surgeries.
When they were writing the DSM-5, they actually originally removed transgenderism altogether to "reduce stigma" then they realized the insurance bit so they created "gender dysphoria".
So now, you can be transgender and not have any mental illness and be totally normal and healthy. But if you have any distress, well you can be a totally normal transgender who just got diagnosed with this totally normal mental illness (distress from others not accepting you) which is covered by insurance.
New Study Finds Dramatically Worsening Mental Health and Health Disparities Among Transgender and Gender -Diverse Adults in the US
June 24, 2024
https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-finds-dramatically-worsening-mental-health-and-health-disparities-among-transgender-and-gender-diverse-adults-in-the-us-clone/
This trumps DSM
That's because people like Trump are being mean to them.
But the military should be run by federal judges! Not the commander in chief.