Ninth Circuit might uphold Trump's ban on transgender troops.
Popular in News & Politics
- What Exactly Does Nikki Haley Expect Her Voters to Do Now?
- The Real Story of the Glamorous Prosecutor Who Took on Police Violence—and Then Seemed to Implode
- Jamie Raskin Explains What America Could Do to Fix the Supreme Court
- Alito’s Second Flag Has an Even Scarier Story Than the First
Donald Trump’s attempt to ban transgender Americans from serving openly in the military found possible supporters at the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. During oral arguments over the policy, a conservative-leaning panel of judges indicated that they might reverse an injunction currently safeguarding the rights of transgender troops. It marked the first time that any court has seriously suggested that the ban passes constitutional muster.
Trump famously tweeted the ban in July 2017 without consulting military officials in an effort to appease evangelical conservatives. In August 2017, he directed Secretary of Defense James Mattis—who opposed the ban—to devise an implementation plan. Following the president’s orders, Mattis convened a panel to conduct a study that would provide legal justifications for the policy. By that point, however, four separate federal district courts had blocked the ban, and one federal appeals court had refused to let it go forward. Behind the scenes, Vice President Mike Pence played a major role in creating the report, aided by anti-trans activists Ryan Anderson and Tony Perkins. Relying on this report, the Trump administration once again attempted to impose the ban in March, only be frozen by the courts once again.
At this point, Trump’s Department of Justice is clearly eager to get this case to the Supreme Court, where, it believes, it can secure five votes to uphold the policy. So it requested, and received, an expedited hearing in the 9th Circuit, asking the appeals court to lift an injunction issued by a federal district court in Washington State.
No court has yet found that Trump’s ban is anywhere close to constitutional. All four district courts held that it violates basic equal-protection principles by singling out sexual minorities for disfavored treatment. But Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN, which represent the transgender plaintiffs, drew a tough panel on Wednesday: Judges Raymond Fisher, Richard Clifton, and Connie Callahan. Fisher is a liberal lion, but Clifton is a moderate conservative, and Callahan sits on the court’s right flank. From the start, Callahan proved extremely skeptical of the district court’s conclusion that the 2018 policy is materially different from the earlier iterations. That’s a problem for the plaintiffs. The earliest version of the ban, Trump’s initial tweet, was plainly a direct assault on transgender Americans. The 2018 version, by contrast, attempted to disguise this animus in pretext, ostensibly discriminating on the basis of gender dysphoria rather than sex and transgender status.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement“I’m not completely convinced by your argument that the 2018 [policy] is the same as the 2017 [policy],” Callahan told Steve Ellis, who represented the plaintiffs. “I can see differences. … They don’t look exactly the same to me.” She dismissed the district court’s decision—which found the new policy to be an extension of the old one—as “quite conclusory.”
Clifton seemed to agree. “Let’s look what happened in the travel ban case,” he said. (Clifton sat on the panel that blocked Trump’s first travel ban.) He noted that the Supreme Court put “great weight” to the fact that Trump rescinded that ban, issued another one, rescinded it, then issued a third, final policy. When the court upheld the third ban in Trump v. Hawaii, Clifton said, it “paid deciding attention to the fact that there was a different justification offered in support of the policy. The past history was in the past. Now we have a potentially analogous situation.”
AdvertisementEllis tried to explain that the latest iteration of the transgender troops ban is extremely similar to the first one, calling it “lipstick on a pig.” There are “ample, undisputed facts in the record,” he insisted, “which establish that this is simply the implementation of the ban that President Trump ordered.” But neither Callahan nor Clifton seemed convinced. Callahan suggested that the district court didn’t really “wrestle with” the 2018 report or pay it sufficient deference. Clifton wondered why the court shouldn’t pay attention to the “justification offered for the revised policy” and ignore Trump’s earlier, utterly implausible rationales.
AdvertisementBrinton Lucas, defending the ban for the Justice Department, seized upon Clifton’s analogy to the travel ban. “This case is on all fours with Trump v. Hawaii,” he told the court. There, plaintiffs said the travel ban was a “religious gerrymandering” targeting Muslims; here, they say the trans troops ban is “just a gerrymander to capture transgender status.” But the court, Lucas claimed, should take the Trump administration at face value, and conclude that the government has merely enforced a “neutral standard” that “requires service in [one’s] biological sex.”
Advertisement AdvertisementAs Joshua Matz wrote in March (quoting Justice Antonin Scalia), this argument “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” Matz, who authored an amicus brief opposing Trump’s policy, pointed out that “revised policy’s effects almost perfectly replicate the prior, discredited policy and mirror the anti-transgender objectives that birthed it.” The president’s attempt to “launder his animus” is laughable. A 44-page report ghostwritten by anti-transgender advocates does not magically transform an unconstitutional assault on sexual minorities into a neutral, lawful policy. Yet both Callahan and Clifton appeared to seriously consider that possibility, raising the prospect of a 2–1 decision in favor of the Trump administration. (Fisher asked few questions but will almost certainly vote against the ban.)
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementIf the court does, indeed, uphold the policy, it won’t take effect immediately, since the injunctions issued by three other district courts will remain in place. But it will probably compel the plaintiffs to take their case to a decidedly unfriendly Supreme Court. When this litigation began, LGBTQ advocates hinged their hopes on Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on social issues. He has since been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who will likely be hostile to transgender rights. Transgender plaintiffs have been on a winning streak for more than a year. But as Wednesday’s arguments illustrated, they are now entering very dangerous territory.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:资讯)
- Listeners encouraged to go wild with Le Sserafim's 4th EP
- 后勤有保障 救援添力量
- Check out new exclusive art from Season 2 of Amazon's 'The Man in the High Castle'
- Toyota and Mazda join forces to develop tech for electric vehicles
- 10 Big Misconceptions About Computer Hardware
- Best smartphone deal: Google Pixel 8a on sale for $449 at Amazon
- Blinking white guy from 'Blinking White Guy' meme speaks out on 'GMA'
- Trump seeks 'very meaningful' summit with Kim
- More Iranian oil likely to reach North Korea after nuclear deal: CRS report
- Pakistan Cricket at crossroads after shock defeat at Pindi
- Park holds talks with Czech prime minister
- Trump insists on North Korea's denuclearization
- Male stars will also wear black to Golden Globes to highlight Hollywood sexual misconduct problems
-
Trump trials: Jack Smith is reportedly reconsidering his strategy.
Donald Trump has been convicted of 34 felony counts in the New York hush money case—but there’s a le ...[详细] -
Katy Perry, John Mayer and Taylor Swift all attended Drake's birthday party
Drake's got a lot of enemies, which is probably why he has such a knack for bringing famous people w ...[详细] -
镜头聚焦乡村新面貌!“百千万工程”主题摄影展在南国书香节上引关注
镜头聚焦乡村新面貌!“百千万工程”主题摄影展在南国书香节上引关注_南方+_南方plus品味岭南书香,阅见文明之光。2024年南国书香节于8月16日至20日在广州中国进出口商品交易会展馆B区盛大开幕,展 ...[详细] -
17 huge moments that defined the royal family in 2017
It's been QUITE the year for the royal family. There's been no end of birthdays, weddings, engagemen ...[详细] -
'Black Myth: Wukong' PS5 review in progress: A potential masterpiece
Black Myth: Wukongwantsto be the modern action RPG we’ve all been waiting for. It checks all t ...[详细] -
Steve Mnuchin got something much worse than coal for Christmas
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin got an early Christmas present on Saturday when a mysterious packa ...[详细] -
Trump to visit Seoul after meeting with Kim Jong
By Park Si-soo U.S. President Donald Trump will visit South Korea and Japan after his historic meeti ...[详细] -
Woman pens open letter to Instagram because her feed is inundated with bras
A woman has penned an open letter to Instagram because she's sick of seeing adverts for bras. But, h ...[详细] -
21 Caves That Offer Otherworldly Experiences
Millions of caves can be found worldwide, many of which are home to flora and fauna that are uniquel ...[详细] -
Blinking white guy from 'Blinking White Guy' meme speaks out on 'GMA'
The "Blinking White Guy" GIF was one of the most popular (and saltiest) memes out there in 2017. And ...[详细]
- Keurig K Mini deal — get $30 off at Target
- Lyft and Ford to work together on self
- Taylor Swift Formula 1 concert recap
- Check out new exclusive art from Season 2 of Amazon's 'The Man in the High Castle'
- 12 Sculptures Made From Recycled Materials
- North Korea says taking 'technical measures' to dismantle nuclear test site
- Chris Hemsworth gleefully pokes fun at divorce rumours on Instagram