U.S. court lets Trump transgender military ban stand, orders new review

[rooster59]

U.S. court lets Trump transgender military ban stand, orders new review

By Andrew Chung and Jonathan Stempel

 

FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators gather to protest U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he plans to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals from serving in any capacity in the U.S. military, at the White House in Washington, U.S. July 26, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court handed President Donald Trump a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to take effect.

 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday set aside a ruling by U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle, which had said the ban likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender service members and recruits.

 

Without ruling on the merits, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said Pechman did not give the military's judgment enough deference, and ordered her to give it more.

 

That finding could strengthen Trump's position, though the government still had the burden of justifying his policy.

 

Sharon McGowan, legal director of Lambda Legal, which represents opponents of the ban, said she believed the decision foreshadowed the eventual "vindication of the constitutional right of the transgender service members who have been harmed by this policy."

 

Pechman is one of four federal judges to rule against Trump's policy toward transgender military personnel.

 

In January, the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, lifted lower court injunctions against the policy, while allowing legal challenges to continue.

 

Kelly Laco, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said that agency will continue defending the ban, which lets the Pentagon "continue implementing a personnel policy it determined necessary to best defend our nation."

 

Trump, a Republican, announced the transgender ban in July 2017, saying the military needed to focus on "decisive and overwhelming victory" without being burdened by the "tremendous medical costs and disruption" of having transgender personnel.

 

The move marked an about-face from a landmark policy announced in 2016 by Democratic President Barack Obama, which let transgender people serve without fear of being discharged, and receive medical care to transition genders.

 

In March 2018, Trump backed a revised policy from then-Defence Secretary Jim Mattis that disqualified most transgender people with a history of gender dysphoria from military service, and people who have undergone gender transition steps.

 

Medical experts define gender dysphoria as distress from the internal conflict between physical gender and gender identity.

 

The policy also allowed those military personnel diagnosed with gender dysphoria under Obama's policy to serve according to their gender identity.

 

In April 2018, Pechman extended her injunction to the revised policy, finding no evidence that transgender troops reduced the military's effectiveness, and saying the ban undermined the dignity of those troops.

 

On Friday, the appeals court said the revised policy "discriminates on the basis of transgender status" but was nevertheless "significantly different" from the 2017 ban.

 

"On the current record," the court said, "a presumption of deference is owed, because the 2018 policy appears to have been the product of independent military judgment."

 

The government, nevertheless, still bore the burden of showing the policy significantly furthered its important interests, "and that is not a trivial burden," the court added.

 

Friday's decision related to an August 2017 lawsuit by current and aspiring Army and Navy personnel, including one stationed overseas with nearly 20 years of experience. Washington state later joined the plaintiffs.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bernadette Baum and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-15

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

[mamypoko]

What's next? a ban on patriots with bone spurs?

[JimGant]

Good decision. The money saved from having to furnish two sets of uniforms could buy a couple more F-35's.

[BobBKK]

Trans in military?  the world has gone mad. Next thing is they will allow men in drag into female toilets... oh wait...

[soistalker]

I am in the military, and married to a dog. I demand spousal benefits for my loved one.

[Puchaiyank]

If you have ever served in the military...you know why the military is no place for transgenders...

 

If you have to ask why not?  Please state your branch of service and military ID number...

[Emdog]

Any time a country arbitrarily shrinks the base of available defense forces, it becomes weaker.

[loonz]

1 minute ago, Emdog said:

Any time a country arbitrarily shrinks the base of available defense forces, it becomes weaker.

or just offer more money or educational benefits to get more people to join.....???

[Jingthing]

A cynical policy done only to give red meat to his homophobic evangelical base.

 

It's pretty clear that 45 himself is fine with transgender soldiers serving but it's an easy give to the bigots that love him.

 

What do you expect from such a demagogue?

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The government, nevertheless, still bore the burden of showing the policy significantly furthered its important interests, "and that is not a trivial burden,"

The Court of Appeals decision is likely to be appealed to the USSC based in part to prove this burden.

[Thomas J]

I am not a huge fan of former Armed Services Head Collin Powell but over the years he has had some very accurate observations.  He stated the military does only two things well.  "Blow things up and kill people".  People are putting their lives at risk.  It is no place to make a PC statement that jeopardizes the lives of those who serve.  If they want to make a PC stand on transgender do it at a private company where the consequences are far less pronounced. 

[Jingthing]

I am not a huge fan of former Armed Services Head Collin Powell but over the years he has had some very accurate observations.  He stated the military does only two things well.  "Blow things up and kill people".  People are putting their lives at risk.  It is no place to make a PC statement that jeopardizes the lives of those who serve.  If they want to make a PC stand on transgender do it at a private company where the consequences are far less pronounced. 

Who said it jeopardizes lives?
Sounds like a bigoted presumption.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Longcut]

5 hours ago, mamypoko said:

What's next? a ban on patriots with bone spurs?

The military is not a Democracy. No one has a right to join. Also, the military is under no obligation to accept you. 

[Skallywag]

I thought the only requirement in the U.S. military was that you "want to kill" whoever the generals tell you to. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The move marked an about-face from a landmark policy announced in 2016 by Democratic President Barack Obama, which let transgender people serve without fear of being discharged, and receive medical care to transition genders.

By making the defence department pay for sex changes, Obama set this up to fail.

The military are about killing people, not personal life choices.

There was no real reason or need to change Clinton's policy.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Emdog said:

Any time a country arbitrarily shrinks the base of available defense forces, it becomes weaker.

I believe the US has over 300 million people in it, so that makes a lot of people to be available. How large does anyone need the US military to be?

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Who said it jeopardizes lives?
Sounds like a bigoted presumption.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Anything that disrupts the military's work of killing the enemy, while not having our side killed puts lives at risk. 

One can argue the semantics all day and night, but it won't change the fact that personal gender choices are nothing to do with military life.

The military are not and should never be a place for personal choices over military requirements.

This ruling in no way changes an individual's right to be whatever sex they want to be, but it makes it no part of the military's responsibility to enable the transition.

 

 

[TPI]

I wouldn't mind if they made "Trans" infantry platoons, you know, 50 "men" or 50 "female" soldiers...they could train and serve as front line units!

[Kasane]

Since transgenders can be judges, can serve in congress. why are they discriminated against for joining the military? Much judicial discretion?

[riclag]

24 minutes ago, Kasane said:

Since transgenders can be judges, can serve in congress. why are they discriminated against for joining the military? Much judicial discretion?

Do judges and congress take communal  showers together? Sounds like to many concessions have to be made for the ones who can't decide what they want to be,special toilets ,special locker rooms,sleeping quarters, doctors of gender that suits their needs,etc etc 

Edited June 16, 2019 by riclag

[BobBKK]

This identity politics of the US is both bizarre and laughable. Don't make decisions based on identity but based on 'fit for service'. Transgenders have severe 'issues' (that's being kind) and they deserve compassion but they should not be in certain occupations, military being one of them. What's next?  lesbians in male soccer teams? 

Go see Prof Peterson on YouTube:  Why Identity Politics Lead to Totalitarian Oppression

[Rimmer]

Nasty troll post removed

[Jingthing]

The exact same closed minded (polite for bigoted) arguments that were made before about integrating black soldiers or including gay and lesbian soldiers are now being used to unfairly attack transgender soldiers. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I don't consider LGBT civil rights a laughing matter. Again, the very same arguments that were used against integrating troops and gay/lesbian troops are now being used against transgender people. It was wrong then, and "trump" is wrong now. This is only for his bigoted base. Nothing else. The military was FINE with the previous liberalization. This is another thing "trump" can do to tear apart anything and everything done by Obama, good or bad. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Scott

[Kasane]

45 minutes ago, riclag said:

Do judges and congress take communal  showers together? Sounds like to many concessions have to be made for the ones who can't decide what they want to be,special toilets ,special locker rooms,sleeping quarters, doctors of gender that suits their needs,etc etc 

Communal showers and too many concessions. That sounds silly to discriminate against other humans.

[Isaanbiker]

Why not let the soldiers have some free fun when bullets and bombs are flying around their ears and eyes? 

 

     I've worked for the Armed Forces Europe and don't think that Lesbian soldiers are worse shooters. 

[Jingthing]

50 minutes ago, Isaanbiker said:

Why not let the soldiers have some free fun when bullets and bombs are flying around their ears and eyes? 

 

     I've worked for the Armed Forces Europe and don't think that Lesbian soldiers are worse shooters. 

Free fun? Oy.

The issue isn't about gay and lesbian soldiers. Happily they are not being kicked out by the bone spurs president. Not yet anyway.

To be clear, this bigoted (and clearly cynical POLITICAL) move against transgender Americans was NOT initiated by the pentagon or military leaders. It started with a TWEET by you know who. Utterly disgusting to trash Americans for political gain that are willing to serve when he was not. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jingthing

[monkeycu]

21 hours ago, Skallywag said:

I thought the only requirement in the U.S. military was that you "want to kill" whoever the generals tell you to. 

 

 

Good one Arlo

[Isaanbiker]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Free fun? Oy.

The issue isn't about gay and lesbian soldiers. Happily they are not being kicked out by the bone spurs president. Not yet anyway.

To be clear, this bigoted (and clearly cynical POLITICAL) move against transgender Americans was NOT initiated by the pentagon or military leaders. It started with a TWEET by you know who. Utterly disgusting to trash Americans for political gain that are willing to serve when he was not. 

Jing, I've got a hard time ( not in a sexual way) to believe anything that comes from a Tweeting Freak.

 

 

[Scott]

More off-topic troll posts and replies removed.