Trump's controversial transgender troop ban takes effect
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump administration hates Vet
Trump's controversial transgender troop ban takes effect
Members of the LGBTQ community and their supporters slam the ban as 'bigoted' and 'irresponsible'.
Demonstrators gather to protest Trump's announcement that he plans to reinstate a ban on transgender individuals from serving in any capacity in the US military [File: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]
MORE ON LGBT
- UN slams 'inhuman' Brunei stoning laws last week
- Lebanon court 'acquits military personnel' in sodomy case last week
- US prosecutors drop all charges against actor Jussie Smollett 2 weeks ago
- A year after Marielle Franco's murder, violence still haunts Rio last month
US President Donald Trump's controversial ban on transgender Americans in the military came into force on Friday following a protracted legal battle that went all the way to the nation's top court.
Trump's administration has insisted that there is "too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality" to allow transgender people to serve - reversing a policy enacted under his predecessor Barack Obama.
But rights groups and thousands of trans members of the military have criticised the ban as "bigoted" and said it makes the US less safe.
The Pentagon says the restrictions are not a blanket ban, but they would bar many if not most people who identify as transgender from enlisting in America's armed forces, and could also impact currently serving personnel.
"This policy will ensure that the US military maintains the highest standards necessary to achieve maximum readiness, deployability, and lethality to fight and win on the battlefield," the Department of Defense says on its website.
The policy has undergone various iterations since Trump first announced it on Twitter in July 2017.
The US Supreme Court ruled in January that the policy could take effect pending the outcome of ongoing litigation.
Under the latest version, no one who has transitioned to another gender or who requires hormone treatment will be able to enlist.
Those who have been diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" are also "presumptively disqualified" from enlisting unless they have been "stable for 36 months and (are) willing and able to serve in (their) biological sex," according to the Department of Defense.
Gender dysphoria, according to the American Psychiatric Association says "involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify."
Serving troops who already transitioned or requested gender reassignment surgery prior to Friday are allowed to remain in the military.
But starting on Friday, those who are newly diagnosed with gender dysphoria may be discharged if they are "unable or unwilling to serve in (their) biological sex", the Department of Defense says.
Repeating 'don't ask, don't tell'
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a research institute focusing on sexual minorities in the military, said the policy amounts to a ban that will force transgender troops to remain "silent and invisible",
"It is 'don't ask, don't tell' all over again," said Belkin, referring to the policy under which gay service members had to hide their sexual orientation or face dismissal from the military.
"The Trump-Pence transgender troop ban is dangerous for both transgender people and our national security," said
Sarah McBride of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), described the policy as a national security threat.
"The fact that a service member who came out on Thursday can continue to serve openly while a service member who comes out on Monday can't only reinforces the cruel and arbitrary nature of this ban," she said in a statement.
Akira Wyatt, a member of the US Navy, told HRC that the US's government ban, "sends the message we aren't capable of doing the jobs we're doing now. It sends of the message of diloyalness, disbelief."
Under the Obama-era policy, transgender recruits were to start being accepted by July 1, 2017. The Trump administration postponed that date to January 1, 2018, before deciding to reverse the policy entirely.
The Pentagon estimates that 9,000 out of a total of 1.3 million active-duty personnel identify as transgender. Of those, 1,000 say they have undergone gender reassignment surgery or want to.
Transgender rights activists say the figure is higher.
"As many as 15,000 transgender service members stand to lose their jobs," Army Staff Sergeant Patricia King, who is transgender, told ABC News this week.
"For those of us who are grandfathered in because we've already come out and we already have a diagnosis, there's the possibility for systematic discrimination," King said.
The new policy is "indefensible," Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, wrote on Twitter.
"This discriminatory policy will lead transgender service members, patriots who have decided to serve their nation, to live in the shadows," she wrote.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
609 visitors
Can't we all just get along?
- Rodney King
There is no right to serve in the military. The military has long maintained standards for enlistment that provide for proper discipline and cohesiveness. Mental disorders like the so-called”transgender identity” fall within the DOD directive as a disqualifying disorder
The DOD has clear guidelines which makes this behavior disqualifying for military service
“Other History of Medical Disorders That Are Disqualifying
Any history of suicidal behavior, that includes discussions, gestures, or the actual attempt is disqualifying. A history of self-mutilation is also disqualifying.
Anxiety issues, either current or historical, or panic, agoraphobia, social phobia, simple phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, other acute reactions to stress, and posttraumatic stress are disqualifying for entry into the service.
Any history or current disorder of being dissociative, bouts of hysteria, or de-personalization are disqualifying.
Any history or current somatoform disorders, including, but not limited to hypochondriasis or chronic pain disorder, are disqualifying.
Any history or current psychosexual conditions, including, but not limited to transsexualism, exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias, are disqualifying.
Derived from Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 6130.3, "Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, and Induction," and DOD Instruction 6130.4, "Criteria and Procedure Requirements for Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Armed Forces. "
You forgot bone spurs. I have yet to see any reputable medical organization call transgender identity a mental disorder. It's no more a mental disorder than believing in a deity of which there is literally no proof at all.
That is a very recent development. It is also easily argued that the reclassification was politically driven.
Clearly politically motivated. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.
Might a mental disorder known to cause stress be a disqualifier for service?
Well PTSD is a mental disorder and is NOT a disqualifier for service.
Do you think that gender dysphoria, being know to cause high levels of stress, might be a disqualifier for service?
I certainly hope that my question meets all applicable standards for everyone.
I think there are varying degrees, just like with PTSD or any other mental condition.
If a person has feelings that they should be the opposite gender...I'm not sure that matters. If they are so overwhelmed by those feelings that they're willing to dramatically alter their body (which in ANY other case would be considered a SEVERE mental disorder), then that's clearly very different.
No, I think you were asking whether 'mental illness' is a disqualifier for service. I answered your question with an example of a 'mental illness' that isn't a disqualifier. Did I confuse you?
Never.
Of course, since the question I asked was in direct response to THIS comment, I can see how you were so easily confused by my question:
Cerenkov: Clearly politically motivated. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder.
I am sure in some world it must be perfectly natural to see THAT post and then my question and confuse yourself as to what I was asking.
I am used to people being able to read and understand simple things, but I suppose I will have to revisit that as long as you are commenting to me.
Coming from somebody who worked in military medicine for 20 years and processed more reenlistment physicals than you could imagine, I can most definitely state that any mental illness in general is in fact a disqualifier for military service, both for initial enlistment and continued military service after the initial enlistment.
i wouldn't touch that comment with a 50' pole
So a diagnosis of PTSD is not automatically followed by discharge.
Okay you me on that one. When I was in, PTSD was the exception to the rule because it was considered service connected. Please take into account that I retired in 1993. This was shortly after the 1st Gulf War and before subsequent actions. Rules may have changed since then. In my time, If a individual came forward with signs of PTSD, he/she were were evaluated by a psychiatrist and referred for counseling as a first step. If counseling failed the service member was then considered medically unfit for service and processed for discharge under honorable coditions.
Ah, I get it.
It is way too logical for all to understand.
I didn't expect everyone to understand it anyways.
According to the 2014 Army directive that I read, they promote coming forward early and early treatment. It seemed to indicate that remaining compliant with prescribed therapy, whether talk or chemical, allowed them to remain in service and retain their rank, unless and/or until medical staff conclude that their PTSD becomes debilitating.
According to who? Please make me a list along with their right to say such thing, if there is any truth to your comment
Yup, as usual.
So you're not actually a doctor but you spent last night at a Holiday Inn?
[deleted]
Is that like the sound of air passing you when falling?
The word you were looking for is "dissent".
Nope.
Meant exactly what I posted.
Democrats Fervor on this subject just ……….. Fell, Dropped, hit the bottom. "But it's a secret (whisper) dontchyaknow !
"The Democrats did give a "Whisper" of descent…..somewhere !"
Oh, okay, so that went from misspelled word to really stupid sentence that has no meaning. Way to keep shoveling...
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Congress didn't have anything to do with this. This is ALL on Trump.
Decades and Decades of Congress, and it's Trump ?
Really ?
Yep it's trump
The Trump administration has not been faring well in the courts, with major legal setbacks stalling important parts of its agenda, particularly on immigration and deregulation. President Trump has blamed liberal judges sitting in the 9th Circuit for the legal defeats, but a Washington Post analysis shows losses have occurred across the country and from judges appointed by both parties, often because of a failure to follow the law governing how changes in policy are made.
Appointing party for judges who have given these rulings
Republican: 17
Democrat: 37
Note: Some cases had multiple judges. Judges who ruled in multiple cases are counted once.
A Washington Post review shows over 60 adverse rulings against the administration. All administrations lose cases, but experts cannot recall so many losses in such a short time.
Many of the cases are in relatively early stages, where judges have determined that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits and, in some cases, issued orders pending final rulings. Reversals are possible. The U.S. Supreme Court already has reversed early rulings on the president’s travel ban and stayed court orders in cases involving the proposed ban on transgender people serving in the military.
Because there is no master list of cases, The Post gathered data from a variety of sources, including a list kept by the Brookings Institution, newspaper articles and a search of dockets in the federal courts.
[ The real reason President Trump is constantly losing in court ]
Below is a breakdown of cases in which a court has intervened in Trump administration decisions after determining they may violate the law or Constitution.
Citizenship status on the census
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced in March that the Census Bureau would start asking about citizenship status in the 2020 Census, a question critics and experts say will deter many immigrants from responding and produce an undercount for some congressional districts. Lawsuits brought by dozens of jurisdictions and organizations arguing that Ross acted illegally have been successful so far in at least three courts. Because the census questionnaire must be ready for printing in June, the administration asked the Supreme Court to review the issue before the completion of trials or judgments by appeals courts.
Kravitz v. Dept. of Commerce
The court rejected the Commerce Department's stated reasons for adding a citizenship question, saying the evidence suggested the "true purpose" was probably "to depress noncitizen response rates."
Date of decision: December 28, 2018 • Court: D. Md. • Judge: George Hazel
Read more about this case
N.Y. v. Dept. of Commerce; N.Y. Immigration Coalition v. Dept. of Commerce
After a trial, the judge concluded that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was "arbitrary and capricious" in adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
Date of decision: January 15, 2019 • Court: S.D.N.Y. • Judge: Jesse Furman
Read more about this case
California v. Ross; San Jose v. Ross
After a trial, the judge found that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted in "bad faith" and violated the Constitution's enumeration clause when he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
Date of decision: March 06, 2019 • Court: N.D. Calif. • Judge: Richard Seeborg
Read more about this case
Environmental regulations
Numerous courts have invalidated rollbacks or delays by the Environmental Protection Agency and other Trump administration agencies of rules promulgated during the administration of President Barack Obama. Among them have been rules on chemical accidents, waste prevention, methane emissions, endangered species, pipelines, oil and gas leases, clean air and clean water. Additional administration degregulatory efforts have been withdrawn after the filing of lawsuits. The main reasons cited by judges in these cases are violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out the rules for regulatory change. Courts have found that administration agencies have failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions and, in some instances, have improperly avoided submitting them for notice and comment as required by the APA.
OIL AND GAS LEASES
Becerra et al. v. Dept. of Interior et al.
A delay of rules on royalties violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: August 30, 2017 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Elizabeth LaPorte
Read more about this case
WASTE PREVENTION
California v. Bureau of Land Management
The state of California sued the federal government for delaying a rule aimed at preventing waste. The court found the delay violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: October 24, 2017 • Court: N.D. Calif. • Judge: Catherine Blake
Read more about this case
ENERGY
NRDC v. Perry
A federal court ruled that the Energy Department's refusal to use national energy-efficiency standards breached regulations. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit stayed the lower court's April order on pending appeal.
Date of decision: February 15, 2018 • Court: N.D. Calif. • Judge: Vince Chhabria
Read more about this case
FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS
Sierra Club et al v. Pruitt
The court found that a delay of a formaldehyde emissions rule violated the Formaldehyde Act.
Date of decision: February 16, 2018 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Jeffrey White
Read more about this case
AIR-QUALITY DESIGNATIONS
In Re Ozone Designation
The EPA administrator failed to promulgate initial air-quality designations as required by law.
Date of decision: March 12, 2018 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Haywood Gilliam
Read more about this case
PESTICIDE RULE
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt
After a federal court held that the EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, it forced it to reverse course on a pesticide rule.
Date of decision: March 21, 2018 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Jeffrey White
Read more about this case
CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS
NRDC et al v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The panel vacated the NHTSA delay of a penalty readjustment for violations of fuel economy standards.
Date of decision: June 29, 2018 • Court: 2nd Cir. • Judges: Rosemary Pooler, Ralph Winter and Barrington Parker
Read more about this case
METHANE EMISSIONS
Clean Air Council v. Pruitt
Several environmental groups sued the EPA, challenging its decision to delay and amend sections of a regulation curbing methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has original jurisdiction, ruled that the EPA overstepped its authority.
Date of decision: July 03, 2018 • Court: D.C. Cir. • Judges: David Tatel and Robert Wilkins
Read more about this case
PIPELINES
Sierra Club v. U.S. Forest Service, Dept. of Agriculture
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service were sued by conservation groups for allowing a pipline through federal lands in Virginia and West Virginia. The court ruled that both agencies violated federal laws.
Date of decision: July 27, 2018 • Court: 4th Cir. • Judges: Stephanie Thacker, William Traxler and Roger Gregory
Read more about this case
PESTICIDE CHLORPYRIFOS
League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Wheeler and EPA
In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered the EPA to ban the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, which former administrator Scott Pruitt had refused to do. On Feb. 6, the circuit agreed to an en banc hearing.
Date of decision: August 09, 2018 • Court: 9th Cir. • Judges: Jed Rakoff and Jacque Nguyen
Read more about this case
WOTUS RULE
SC Coastal Conservation League et al. v. Pruitt
A group of conservation advocates sued the EPA after it delayed the "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule. A federal court blocked the agency from further delays, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: August 16, 2018 • Court: D.S.C. • Judge: David Norton
Read more about this case
CHEMICAL ACCIDENTS
Air Alliance Houston v. EPA
A group of environmental groups sought to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from further delaying Obama-era regulations designed to reduce the risk of chemical accidents from being implemented. The D.C. court vacated the delay, writing that the administration’s actions “make a mockery of the statute.”
Date of decision: August 17, 2018 • Court: D.C. Cir. • Judge: Robert Wilkins
Read more about this case
EPA ABEYANCE OF COAL WASTE
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group et al. v. EPA et al.
The court denied an EPA motion to hold a rule in abeyance after also deciding that Obama regulations weren't tough enough.
Date of decision: August 21, 2018 • Court: DC Cir. • Judges: Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard
Read more about this case
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. U.S.
After a lawsuit by the Indian tribe and others, a court restored Endangered Species Act status to Greater Yellowstone grizzlies after the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted them. The judge found that the service "illegally negotiated away the best available science in order to reach an accomodation" with Wyoming, Idaho and Montana.
Date of decision: September 24, 2018 • Court: D. Mont. • Judge: Dana Christensen
Read more about this case
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE
Indigenous Environmental Network et al. v. State Dept. et al.
A federal judge temporarily blocked construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, ruling that the Trump administration had failed to justify its decision granting a permit for the 1,200-mile-long project.
Date of decision: November 18, 2018 • Court: D. Mont. • Judge: Brian Morris
Read more about this case
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Puget Soundkeeper Alliance et al v. Wheeler et al
The EPA delayed the effective date of a rule defining "waters of the United States." The judge ruled that it "deprived the public of an opportunity to comment on relevant and significant issues in violation of the APA’s notice and comment requirements."
Date of decision: November 26, 2018 • Court: W.D. Wash. • Judge: John Coughenour
Read more about this case
PIPELINES
Cowpasture River Preservation Association et al. v. Forest Service
Environmental groups successfully sued the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that the agency's authorization of a pipeline within national forests was unconstitutional.
Date of decision: December 13, 2018 • Court: 4th Cir. • Judges: Stephanie Thacker, James Wynn and Roger Gregory
Read more about this case
Transgender military ban
President Trump announced via Twitter on July 26, 2017, a ban on transgender people serving in the military, reversing an Obama administration decision. In response to court rulings saying the ban was probably discriminatory, the Defense Department modified the restrictions, but four courts blocked it, with one being overruled by an appeals court. On Jan. 22, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 vote, lifted injunctions while the cases move forward in the lower courts.
MILITARY BAN
Doe 1 v. Trump
One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues.
Date of decision: October 30, 2017 • Court: C.D. Cal. • Judge: Jesus Bernal
Read more about this case
MILITARY BAN
Stone v. Trump
One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues. The injunction in this was was stayed on March 7, 2019.
Date of decision: November 21, 2017 • Court: D. Md. • Judge: Marvin Garbis
Read more about this case
MILITARY BAN
Karnoski v. Trump
One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues, staying the injunctions in this and two other cases.
Date of decision: December 11, 2017 • Court: W.D. Wash. • Judge: Marsha Pechman
Read more about this case
MILITARY BAN
Stockman v. Trump
One of five cases in which judges found "plausible" claims that a ban on transgender people in the military was unconstitutional. The administration redid the initial order. On Jan. 22, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the restrictions to go into effect while the legal battle continues, staying injunctions in this and two other cases.
Date of decision: December 22, 2017 • Court: S.D. Cal. • Judge: Jesus Bernal
Read more about this case
MILITARY BAN
Doe 2 et al v. Trump
One of five cases enjoining Trump administration restrictions on transgender service in the military. The injunction was vacated by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Jan. 4, 2019. The Supreme Court has stayed injunctions as well.
Date of decision: August 06, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Read more about this case
Federal funding for ‘sanctuary cities’
Days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order that placed immigration-related conditions on federal funding to cities. The action penalized “sanctuary cities” by threatening to withhold grants from jurisdictions that the Justice Department deemed insufficiently cooperative in helping federal authorities detain undocumented immigrants. Many jurisdictions won rulings declaring the conditions were likely to be illegal because they were not authorized by law. Some ruled unconstitutional the law invoked in support of the conditions.
San Francisco et al. v. Trump
The city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County filed a lawsuit to block Trump’s executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials. In August, a California appeals court upheld the injunction barring Trump from defunding the Bay Area city and counties. It did not uphold a nationwide injunction.
Date of decision: August 20, 2017 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: William Orrick III
Read more about this case
Los Angeles v. Sessions
The city of Los Angeles sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding, arguing they were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which the Justice Department appealed. This case is ongoing.
Date of decision: September 13, 2017 • Court: C.D. Cal. • Judge: Manuel Real
Read more about this case
Philadelphia v. Sessions
Philadelphia sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding. A district court judge issued an injunction, which the Justice Department appealed. This case is ongoing.
Date of decision: June 06, 2018 • Court: E.D. Pa. • Judge: Michael Baylson
Read more about this case
Chicago v. Sessions
The city of Chicago sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding, arguing they were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, which was upheld but narrowed, by a court of appeals.
Date of decision: July 27, 2018 • Court: N.D. Ill. • Judge: Harry Leinenweber
Read more about this case
Evanston v. Sessions
The city of Evanston, Ill., and the U.S. Conference of Mayors sued the Trump administration over new immigration-related requirements placed on federal funding. A judge ordered a preliminary injunction, consistent with the one issued in Chicago v. Trump.
Date of decision: August 09, 2018 • Court: N.D. Ill. • Judge: Harry Leinenweber
Read more about this case
New York et al. v. Whitaker
The Trump administration added immigration-related conditions to receive grant funding. New York City and several states sued, alleging both constitituional and Administrative Procedure Act violations.
Date of decision: November 30, 2018 • Court: S.D.N.Y. • Judge: Edgardo Ramos
Read more about this case
City and County of San Francisco v Sessions et al
A judge struck down a slightly revised version of a DOJ attempt to impose immigration-related conditions on federal grants.
Date of decision: March 04, 2019 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: William Orrick III
Read more about this case
DACA program
The Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provided temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. In March 2018, the Trump administration canceled DACA, claiming it was legally indefensible, rescinding deportation protection for nearly 700,000 of these immigrants known as “dreamers.” Cities, states, organizations and individuals across the country challenged the rescission. Several judges, though not all, ruled against the Trump administration. Appeals are pending.
Torres v. Dept. of Homeland Security
A Mexican man living in California sued to halt several government agencies from revoking his legal status under DACA. The court granted a preliminary injunction, blocking the administration from either revoking his DACA status or preventing him from applying to renew.
Date of decision: September 29, 2017 • Court: S.D. Calif. • Judge: Jeffrey Miller
Read more about this case
Regents of Univ. of California v. Dept of Homeland Security
The University of California system filed a lawsuit in response to the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA. A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the federal government to continue accepting DACA renewal applications; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the injunction. The administration filed for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, along with the related New York and D.C. lawsuits.
Date of decision: January 09, 2018 • Court: N.D. Calif. • Judge: William Alsup
Read more about this case
Vidal v. Nielsen, New York v. Trump
Individuals, organizations and states challenged the Trump administration’s decision to rescind DACA and end protections for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally. A New York court granted a preliminary injunction. The administration appealed the decision.
Date of decision: March 29, 2018 • Court: E.D.N.Y. • Judge: Nicholas Garaufis
Read more about this case
NAACP et al. v. Trump; Princeton v. Trump
The NAACP alleged that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by revoking DACA without explanation. The case was later joined by a similar suit filed by Princeton University and Microsoft. A D.C. court held that the DACA termination was unlawful and reinstated the status quo. The government appealed the decision.
Date of decision: April 24, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: John Bates
Read more about this case
Crackdowns on illegal immigration
In addition to the DACA rulings, courts have ruled against elements of the Trump administration’s signature crackdown on illegal immigration, including limiting entry points for asylum seekers, revoking temporary protected status for immigrants from certain countries already living legally in the United States and family separation. At least three courts ruled against the administration’s travel ban applied to certain Muslim-majority countries, which, after being redrafted, was upheld by the Supreme Court on June 26.
TRAVEL BAN
Washington v. Trump
This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, but only after a redo by the administration.The case was terminated voluntarily.
Date of decision: February 03, 2017 • Court: W.D. Wash. • Judge: James Robart
Read more about this case
TRAVEL BAN
Hawaii v. Trump
This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii, but only after a redo by the administration.
Date of decision: March 15, 2017 • Court: D. Haw. • Judge: Derrick Watson
Read more about this case
TRAVEL BAN
IRAP v. Trump
This travel ban case was among those invalidated by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii.
Date of decision: October 17, 2017 • Court: D. Md. • Judge: Theodore Chuang
Read more about this case
ENTRY FOR FOREIGN ENTREPRENEURS
National Venture Capital Association et al. v. DHS
The group sued over a delay in the implementation of a rule allowing certain foreign entrepreneurs to get immigration "parole." A judge ruled it was a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: December 01, 2017 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: James Boasberg
Read more about this case
ABORTION
Garza v. Hargan
The ACLU sued the Trump administration on behalf of detained and unaccompanied immigrant teenagers, challenging government policies of obstructing their access to abortions. In March, a D.C. court temporarily enjoined the government from enforcing those procedures.
Date of decision: March 30, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Tanya Chutkan
Read more about this case
ASYLUM
Ms. L. v. ICE
The ACLU sued on behalf of asylum-seeking parents forcibly separated from their children, arguing that the policy was unconstitutional. In June, a judge temporarily blocked the administration from deporting parents whose children were forcibly removed. The government appealed; the case is ongoing.
Date of decision: June 26, 2018 • Court: S.D. Cal. • Judge: Dana Sabraw
Read more about this case
ASYLUM
Damus v. Nielsen
Asylum seekers in five states challenged the Trump administration’s blanket practice of detaining them. A federal judge blocked the government, ordering agencies to follow its policies and make individualized determinations for parole.
Date of decision: July 02, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: James Boasberg
Read more about this case
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
Centro Presente v. DHS
A Massachusetts-based immigrant advocacy group sued the Trump administration after it terminated temporary protected status for Haitians, Salvadorans and Hondurans, arguing the decision was fueled by “racial animus.” The lawsuit, joined by more than a dozen state attorneys general, alleges that the administration's actions were unconstitutional and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The case is ongoing.
Date of decision: July 23, 2018 • Court: D. Mass. • Judge: Denise Casper
Read more about this case
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
Ramos v. Nielsen
DHS terminated a protected status for immigrants already in the United States from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaraugua and Sudan.The judge said plaintiffs had made a strong showing of violations of the Administratiave Procedure Act and acting with racial animus.
Date of decision: October 13, 2018 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Edward Chen
Read more about this case
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
Casa de Maryland v. Trump
An immigrant advocacy group sued the Trump administration over its decision to revoke temporary protected status for El Salvador, arguing that it was driven by “Trump’s anti-Latino immigrant animus.” The designation, created in 2001 after a devastating earthquake displaced thousands, allowed more than 200,000 to remain in the United States lawfully. A Maryland court ruled that the termination was racially motivated. The case is on appeal.
Date of decision: November 28, 2018 • Court: D. Md. • Judge: George Hazel
Read more about this case
TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS
Saget et al. v. Trump et al.
Haitian immigrant litigants made a plausible case of Administrative Procedure Act violations in the revocation of temporary protected status.
Date of decision: December 14, 2018 • Court: E.D.N.Y. • Judge: William Kuntz II
Read more about this case
ASYLUM
Grace et al. v. Whitaker
A group of Central American adults and children filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to strip asylum protections from immigrants fleeing domestic and gang violence. In December, a D.C. federal judge permanently enjoined the department’s new policy, holding that it was unconstitutional.
Date of decision: December 17, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Emmet Sullivan
Read more about this case
ASYLUM
East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump
The Trump administration made anyone crossing the southern border other than at a designated point of entry ineligible for asylum. A court issued a preliminary injunction, saying the decision was a likely violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Date of decision: December 19, 2018 • Court: N.D. Cal. • Judge: Jon Tigar
Read more about this case
Health-care programs
States challenged Trump administration regulations that would permit employers to stop covering workers’ birth control under the Affordable Care Act for religious or moral reasons. At least two courts have stepped in to block the regulations. Separately, multiple courts invalidated a decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to end grants to 81 programs designed to curb teenage pregnancies.
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
Planned Parenthood of Greater Wash. and N. Idaho et al. v. HHS, Azar
HHS ended funding for teen pregnancy protection programs, contrary to statute.
Date of decision: April 24, 2018 • Court: E.D. Wash. • Judge: Thomas Rice
Read more about this case
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
Healthy Teen Network v. Azar
HHS cut grants for teen pregnancy programs without providing a reason, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: April 25, 2018 • Court: D. Md. • Judge: Catherine Blake
Read more about this case
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
Policy and Research LLC et al. v. HHS
HHS cut off grants for teen pregnancy programs "without any explanation whatsover," in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Date of decision: May 11, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Ketanji Jackson
Read more about this case
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
King County v. Azar
HHS cut off grants for a teen pregnancy program without explanation.
Date of decision: May 29, 2018 • Court: W.D. Wash. • Judge: John Coughenour
Read more about this case
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
Planned Parenthood of N.Y. v. HHS, Azar
HHS ended funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs, contrary to statute.
Date of decision: August 30, 2018 • Court: S.D.N.Y. • Judge: Naomi Buchwald
Read more about this case
TEEN PREGNANCY PROTECTION
Multnomah County v. Azar, HHS
HHS terminated grants for teen pregnancy programs without "reasoned explanation."
Date of decision: August 30, 2018 • Court: D. Ore. • Judge: Youlee You
Read more about this case
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
California v. HHS
A group of 13 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump administration policies undercutting the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide no-cost birth control to workers. Gilliam issued a preliminary injunction against the administration's move.
Date of decision: January 13, 2019 • Court: N.D. Calif. • Judge: Haywood Gilliam
Read more about this case
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Commonwealth of Pa. et al. v. Trump
A coalition of attorneys general fought the Trump administration’s rules that weakened the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive policies and allowed employers to opt out based on moral or religious grounds.The judge held that the administration lacked legal authority for the action.
Date of decision: January 14, 2019 • Court: E.D. Pa. • Judge: Wendy Beetlestone
Read more about this case
MEDICAID WORK RULE
Stewart v. Azar
Date of decision: March 27, 2019 • Court: D. D.C. • Judge: James Boasberg
Read more about this case
MEDICAID WORK RULE
Gresham et al v Azar
Date of decision: March 27, 2019 • Court: D. D.,C. • Judge: James Boasberg
Read more about this case
Other rulings
The administration has taken hits from the courts in a variety of other cases, including Trump’s attempt to de-credential CNN’s Jim Acosta, trim the rights of federal employees, change the rules on predatory lending to students and even Trump’s practice of blocking his critics on Twitter.
FIRST AMENDMENT
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump
A federal court ruled that Trump’s practice of blocking his critics on Twitter violated the First Amendment.
Date of decision: May 23, 2018 • Court: S.D.N.Y. • Judge: Naomi Buchwald
Read more about this case
LABOR RELATIONS
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump
Executive orders making it easier to fire federal employees and weaken representation were struck down as a violation of federal labor-management relations law.
Date of decision: August 25, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Ketanji Jackson
Read more about this case
EDUCATION
Bauer v. DeVos
Nineteen states and the District sued the Education Department and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for delaying regulations protecting students from predatory lending practices. The court vacated the department rule, saying it dispensed with improper rulemaking procedures.
Date of decision: September 17, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Randolph Moss
Read more about this case
FIRST AMENDMENT
CNN, Acosta v. Dept. of Justice
CNN filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging a First Amendment violation and demanding that journalist Jim Acosta’s White House credentials be restored. A federal court ruled that due process and notice must be given before the administration can revoke a press pass.
Date of decision: November 19, 2018 • Court: D.D.C. • Judge: Timothy Kelly
Read more about this case
CIVIL RIGHTS, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
National Women's Law Center et al v. OMB et al
A judge ordered the Trump administration to reinstate an Obama-era rule that required companies to report pay data by race and gender, a move advocates say will help shrink the wage gap.
Date of decision: March 04, 2019 • Court: D. D.C. • Judge: Tanya Chutkan
Read more about this case
EDUCATION, IDEA
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates v DeVos
A judge ruled that Education Secretary Betsy Devos violated the APA by delaying a rule to ensure children of color are not disproportionately punished or sent to special-education classrooms.
Date of decision: March 07, 2019 • Court: D. D.C. • Judge: Tanya Chutka
Yes, really.
That "Thinking?" is exactly why we have Trump now.
It clearly is, because these details of the policy . . .
. . . are not focused on the readiness of the individual.
Anybody who is demonstrably ready for deployment - i.e. mentally and physically healthy and stable - should be allowed to serve. A blanket ban is not justified. I can't think of why anyone would be "presumptively disqualified" from serving. There's no justification for a different standard.
Reminded me of a joke...
What did the psychologist say to the man who showed up for his appointment covered in nothing but Saran wrap?
"Clearly I can see you're nuts..."
"Anybody who is demonstrably ready for deployment - i.e. mentally and physically healthy and stable - should be allowed to serve. A blanket ban is not justified. I can't think of why anyone would be "presumptively disqualified" from serving. There's no justification for a different standard."
I agree, which isn't often, but you are right on with this one Tacos.
I don't understand, so women are allowed to serve and men are allowed to serve, but women who become men and men who become women are not allowed to serve. What's the difference?
The difference is Mike Pence and the evangelical supporters who demand their right to discriminate trying to inject their subjective faith into our secular government and military. There is zero evidence transgender personnel are any less ready or less capable so it can't be a performance based decision.
I always found it odd that people like pence claim that their god hates all the same people they hate. Seems like a strange coincidence...
(/s)
When I was in the service I can say in all honesty I didn't care in the least if a fellow Marine was, "LGBT", as long as they could do the job. That's what it boils down to. This is nothing more than trump kissing his bases ass(s). Nothing more.
I think alot of this has to do with berthing, especially on ships.
Would a woman think it is OK to know that one of their berthing mates was once a male?
How would they know that person is in transition or just wearing a wig to get into that berthing? Giving them a stateroom would not be fair to the rest of the enlisted, unless , of course, that person is an officer.
With shore based units it could be a little easier to place trans in rooms with other trans or by themselves.
Obviously, those that are all for it probably have never served.
I am a 23 year retired Army Veteran and I am for it.
Good for you...
That's one.
My son served, and so is he.
How is that different if one of her bunkmates was a lesbian? You don't seem to understand that trans people are not just dressing as the opposite gender up for sexual thrills. That trans female has no more interest in a woman than any other women does.
OK, let me rephrase my comment, as it is obvious that some that served are OK with it.
Those that think things through and don't base decisions on feelings are questioning this policy.
I understand that many things that people are against will one day be reality, that's why society changes, but activists don't need to jam it down every one else's throats.
If you truly feel strong about something, don't base those decisions on feelings. Show studies (legitimate ones) that back up why things should change without causing a ruckus.
It's really simple.
That sentence is contradictory. Feeling strong about something inherently causes one to base the discussion on feelings. Sheesh.
The military DID studies and came to the decision to allow transgenders to serve. Neither Trump, nor his sycophants have presented any studies, legitimate or otherwise, to support their ban. If it's really simple, they should have and could have done so.
The President is the Commander in Chief. He can pretty much do what he sees as right for this country as long as it is legal.
I'm done...
[Removed]
Obviously you have never served. It shows.
It was crammed down our throats because we service members were never asked about it. I understand we follow orders of our superiors, but it would have been nice if our opinions and concerns were listened to.
If the majority of those talked to were for it, then it probably not be the issue it is today.
Hu mmm your first comment is a lie and something you made out of thin air
I've more time in Vietnam than you have sitting around.
Then Vietnam was never in your past because I have never "sat around".
Sonny I could get nasty with a rebuttal but apparently you've never been in combat There's an old infantry adage that applies to your comment
BTW I was retired in
73 after more than a year in WR
Currently in my 36th year of service and I'm for it
Not trying to knock you, but how are you able to stay in for more than 30 years, which is the max allowed? I understand there is some program where you can ask the secretary of that service to stay longer, but I don't now how many would do that.
I completed 20 years active duty and decided that after E7 it was all politics and did not want to deal with it.
Don't sweat it. I joined young, haven't reached retirement age (3 yrs to go) have kept progressing in knowledge and rank, am pretty darn good at what I do and still love doing it. I was actually supposed to be medically released last year but at the last minute the powers that be decided they wanted to keep me around even if I'm somewhat broken.
That's cool we all make the decisions we think are the best for ourselves.
I truly am happy for you. Doing what you love really makes life much better.
Good luck to you in your eventual retirement.
Utterly bullshit. The services enacted the policy in the first fucking place.
Awwww...cursing for no reason. Makes people look so petty.
Awww, whining about cursing, makes your comment so petty.
I note that you failed to address the facts in my comment.
The military spends 5 times more on Viagra than it would on transgender troops each year to the tune of 84.24 million.
One serving and defending our Country can wear a pink tutu with a tiara on top for all I care. Ones inner self has no bearing on anything else in my opinion.
I showed up for formation in my pink tutu and tiara....the commander was not amused....
I would think not, but the notion brought a grin to my face:)
Ever watch "MASH"?
My favorite bit of all time is when Frank Burns says to Klinger
"How dare you wear that hat in formation?"
Klinger:
"It's spring, Sir!"
Klinger was my favorite. He may have hated the Army but he was always correct in his military bearing (except for that dressing up part)
Klinger was my favorite as well, I think it had to do with his irreverence to authority (Major Burns in particular). He did have style:)
if ya want to count beans...
why should 6 - 12 thousand people cost the same as well over 1 million people?
seriously, no one is THAT special or needed THAT much.
if all my employees cost me 20 per hour why would I hire one who costs 200 per hour or more? other than makeup they do not bring any special skills to the table not found elsewhere for much less per person.
Your comments are total fabrications