Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention in transgender troops ban
The Trump management has filed a request with the Supreme Court to pause a lower court’s ruling that blocked the enforcement of a ban on military service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Solicitor General John Sauer contends that the injunction from a Washington state court undermines the executive branch’s authority over military personnel decisions. The case arises from challenges to Trump’s executive order, which prohibits service by individuals with gender dysphoria, a policy elaborated upon by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Critics argue that this ban unfairly discriminates against transgender individuals, as it effectively discharges those currently serving who identify as transgender, contrasting with a previous policy that allowed existing transgender personnel to remain in service. A separate case also highlights allegations of discrimination by the administration against all transgender individuals.
Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention in transgender troops ban
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to pause a lower court’s order that blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from enforcing a ban on service members who have gender dysphoria.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued on behalf of President Donald Trump, Hegseth, and other military leaders that a lower court’s injunction in Washington state in Shilling vs. United States “cannot be squared with the substantial deference” that the courts owe to the executive branch’s military-related decisions.
“The district court issued a universal injunction usurping the Executive Branch’s authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces — despite this Court previously staying injunctions against a materially indistinguishable policy,” Sauer said.
The solicitor general said the case “does not plow new ground,” noting that the high court granted temporary relief to the administration in 2019 that allowed then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to enforce a similar ban.
The plaintiffs in the case, comprising a handful of service members who identify as transgender, have argued the policy under Mattis was different in that it grandfathered into the military any current transgender servicemembers, whereas Hegseth’s policy would result in their immediate discharge.
The case, one of three, challenges Trump’s executive order, as well as Hegseth’s subsequent policy carrying out the order, which banned anyone with gender dysphoria from serving in the military.
The order also banned from the military anyone who seeks medical care for gender dysphoria or anyone who identifies as pronouns that do not correspond to their sex, which the Trump administration has argued is rooted in science.
“It is undisputed that gender dysphoria is a medical condition associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning,” Sauer said.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ARGUES BANNING TRANSGENDER TROOPS IS ‘CORE AREA’ OF PRESIDENT’S POWER
In a separate case, more than two dozen service members, some of whom identify as transgender and have lengthy military careers and awards for their services, argued to courts in Washington, D.C., that Trump and Hegseth were unjustly discriminating against all transgender people, not just people with gender dysphoria.
A judge who issued a separate injunction that is now being examined by an appeals court agreed that the administration showed animus toward transgender people without justification. The judge pointed to Hegseth’s calling it a ban on all transgender people on social media.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...