Posted on 11/25/2018 11:42:46 AM PST by Kaslin
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday asked the Supreme Court to bypass the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' and decide on whether or not the Trump administration's ban on transgenders in the military is constitutional, NPR reported.
From the court petition:
In 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced a new policy concerning military service by transgender individuals. Under the Mattis policy, transgender individuals with a history of a medical condition called gender dysphoria would be disqualified from military service unless they meet certain conditions. The question presented is: Whether the district court erred in preliminary enjoining the military from implementing the Mattis policy nationwide.
Here are the conditions set forth by the new policy, as described in the petition (emphasis mine):
In February 2018, Secretary Mattis sent the President a memorandum proposing a new policy consistent with the panel’s conclusions, along with a lengthy report explaining the policy. App., infra, 113a-209a. Like the Carter policy, the Mattis policy holds that “transgender persons should not be disqualified from service solely on account of their transgender status.” Id. at 149a. And like the Carter policy, the Mattis policy draws distinctions on the basis of a medical condition (gender dysphoria) and related treatment (gender transition). Id. at 207a-208a. Under the Mattis policy—as under the Carter policy—transgender individuals without a history of gender dysphoria would be required to serve in their biological sex, whereas individuals with a history of gender dysphoria would be presumptively disqualified from service. Ibid. The two policies differ in their exceptions to that disqualification.
Under the Mattis accession standards, individuals with a history of gender dysphoria would be permitted to join the military if they have not undergone gender transition, are willing and able to serve in their biological sex, and can show 36 months of stability (i.e., the absence of gender dysphoria) before joining. App., infra, 123a. Under the Mattis retention standards, servicemembers who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria after entering service would be permitted to continue serving if they do not seek to undergo gender transition, are willing and able to serve in their biological sex, and are able to meet applicable deployability requirements. Id. at 123a-124a.
Under both the accession and the retention standards of the Mattis policy, individuals with gender dysphoria who have undergone gender transition or seek to do so would be ineligible to serve, unless they obtain a waiver. App., infra, 123a. The Mattis policy, however, contains a categorical reliance exemption for “transgender Service members who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and either entered or remained in service following the announcement of the Carter policy.” Id. at 200a. Under that exemption, those servicemembers “who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a military medical provider after the effective date of the Carter policy, but before the effective date of any new policy, may continue to receive all medically necessary treatment * * * and to serve in their preferred gender, even after the new policy commences.” Ibid. The Department has since confirmed that the exemption would also extend to any servicemember “who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria prior to the effective date of the Carter policy and has continued to serve and receive treatment pursuant to the Carter policy after it took effect.” C.A. E.R. 489.
According to The Guardian, the administration is pushing for a decision because it “involves an issue of imperative public importance: the authority of the US military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces."
This isn't the first time the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to fast-track their decision on Trump's decision end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which began under President Obama.
The administration also asked the Supreme Court to make a decision on the legality behind the 2020 census having a question about someone's citizenship status. And, not surprisingly, the lawsuits take place in the Ninth Circuit, which has long opposed President Trump's policy agenda.
The Supreme Court tries to wait until multiple courts at both the district and appellate level have heard the case before they make a determination. It's rare for the highest court to take on a case as often as the Trump administration has pushed them to take.
The US military is NOT the place for crazy social experiments with the mentally ill, period!!!
“Major” is a verb when referring to a primary course of study. Why do people insist on twisting it into an adverb and using it as an adjective?
(Jamal Khashoggi’s long road to the doors of the Saudi Consulate...opinion)
There are other articles, consider the authors/source...Khashoggis was not killed for nothing.............It is not the USA's argument.
Engrish is a VERY flexable language.
He is the “Commander in Chief”, why is he Begging the Court for powers? He Leads the f-ing Army.
The Founding Fathers had a fair amount of spelling flexability, why not #MeToo?
If I recall correctly, there were some court cases on don’t ask/don’t tell. Those judges seemed poised to rule that the don’t ask/don’t tell policy on homosexuality was a violation of due process and constitutional rights.
That became moot when Congress repealed Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell during the Obama years. But if that reasoning is used again with people with gender dysphoria/transsexual issues, it’s possible that the courts will overturn bans on transsexual peoples.
Well, we have to count the votes. We know Ginsburg and Wise Latina, etc. will vote to overrule a ban on transsexuals. Will there be five to uphold such a ban?
And we also need to discuss, that the military is fundamentally different from civilian life. There are real questions as to whether someone getting hormone shots and psychological problems should be in the military.
If they’d had auto-correct, it might have been “We, the purple...”
.
This is mandatory!
One lune can render an entire company vulnerable.
.
I have turned all of those “features [bugs...]” off.
All legal challenges to Presidential actions should originate in the Supreme Court.
The mentally ill are very upset by this. They want crazy experiments, social and otherwise.
I understand there are also questions about the military paying for gender 'reassignment' surgery.
Absolutely not, IMHO.
That is necessary to keep people from joining to get their sex changes paid for by taxpayers.
Bravo, Trump!!
I can’t answer the question about the psychological problems of people getting hormone shots. However, I do have a question as a real woman. One anti trans argument has been the trans medical costs. Some time ago I read a report that the military and VA costs for viagra and related treatment is many, many times trans medical costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.