DC appeals court grills Trump admin on transgender military ban policy
The Trump administration faced tough questions from a three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C. regarding the implementation of the Pentagon’s transgender military ban policy. The panel, consisting of Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Gregory G. Katsas, and Neomi Rao, presided over oral arguments on Tuesday, focusing on the lower court’s finding of animus behind the ban.
District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the ban in March, citing that the order was “soaked in animus” and discriminated against individuals based on their transgender status. During the oral arguments, the judges grilled Justice Department attorney Jason Manion on whether the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion responded that they did not.
Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also emphasized the finding of animus by the lower court, describing the policy as “extraordinarily unusual” due to the government openly expressing animosity towards a specific group of people.
The discussion also focused on the potential harm to military readiness and competence if the ban were not implemented. Manion argued that the government would suffer irreparable harm if Reyes’ order was not stayed, citing the president’s constitutional powers as justification for the policy.
However, Judge Pillard questioned why the government had not expressed similar concerns about military readiness in the past, pointing out that the military had operated under different policies without issue. Judge Katsas also pressed the government on the implementation procedure for the ban, particularly in cases where a servicemember was found to have a disqualifying condition.
The oral arguments did not result in a ruling, but an opinion is expected in the coming days. It is likely that the decision will be appealed to the high court. Shannon Minter expressed optimism after the arguments, stating that they were hopeful the court would deny the stay and allow transgender individuals to continue serving in the military.
The case centers around a January 27 executive order signed by President Trump, directing the Defense Department to update its guidance on transgender military service. The plaintiffs in the case argue that the ban violates their constitutional rights and would cause irreparable harm if implemented.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of transgender individuals serving in the military hangs in the balance. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the rights of transgender service members and the future of military policy on inclusion and diversity.
