DC Circuit Gives Trump's Transgender Ban a Boost—But It Still Won't Go Into Effect
Despite Friday's order, the military policy is still subject to other nationwide injunctions.
January 04, 2019 at 11:54 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal appeals court in Washington on Friday lifted a nationwide injunction that blocked a Trump administration policy barring transgender service members from serving in the military.
A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a per curiam order found “clear error” in a district court injunction blocking implementation of the policy. The panel did not rule on the merits of the case, but faulted the lower court's finding that the policy, known as the Mattis Plan, was the “equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service.”
The judges said the record showed that some transgender people were permitted to serve.
Despite Friday's order, the military policy will not immediately go into effect since it's still subject to other nationwide injunctions. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on a Justice Department request seeking to allow immediate enforcement of the policy.
The D.C. Circuit appeal came from a case handled by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who has rejected Justice Department requests to dissolve her injunction.
The panel's five-page order said the lower court “erred” in finding that the Mattis Plan was largely a continuation the Trump administration's initial 2017 transgender ban.
“[W]e must recognize that the Mattis Plan plausibly relies upon the 'considered professional judgment' of 'appropriate military officials,' Goldman, 475 U.S. at 509, and appears to permit some transgender individuals to serve in the military consistent with established military mental health, physical health, and sex-based standards,” the panel said.
Judges Thomas Griffith, Robert Wilkins and Stephen Williams were on the panel. Williams concurred in the result, and separate opinions are expected to be filed at a later date.
Read the D.C. Circuit ruling here:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Orrick Secures Summary Judgment for RingCentral in Privacy Class Action
NY Lateral Partner Moves Spike, Especially in PE and Funds Practices
'That's Not the Job' for the DOL: Crop of Suits Against Biden Administration
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250