Justices Temporarily Restore Trump's Transgender Troop Ban
But the court rejected the Trump administration's request to hurry up and review the legality of the policy.
January 22, 2019 at 09:55 AM
4 minute read
Updated at 12:47 p.m.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration's ban on transgender military service to take effect temporarily, but rejected the administration's request to hurry up and review the legality of the policy.
In three pending cases, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had urged the justices not to wait for federal appeals courts to rule on the injunctions against the ban, which is the usual path taken for district court rulings to reach the high court.
The justices' order said the injunctions will be stayed until the high court receives and acts on a petition for review. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan voted to deny the government's requests to block the injunctions and skip over the appellate courts.
“The decisions imposing those injunctions are wrong, and they warrant this Court's immediate review,” Francisco insisted in his petition for “certiorari before judgment” in United States v. Karnoski. “The government respectfully submits that the Court should grant the petitions for writs of certiorari before judgment, consolidate the cases for decision, and consider this important dispute this Term.”
Reacting to the court's decisions Tuesday, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec issue this statement:
“We are pleased the Supreme Court granted stays in these cases, clearing the way for the policy to go into effect while litigation continues. The Department of Defense has the authority to create and implement personnel policies it has determined are necessary to best defend our nation. Due to lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, our military had been forced to maintain a prior policy that poses a risk to military effectiveness and lethality for over a year. We will continue to defend in the courts the authority and ability of the Pentagon to ensure the safety and security of the American people.”
Advocates for LGBTQ rights criticized the court's stays, but drew some comfort from the court's decision not to let the Trump administration expedite consideration of its objections to the injunctions.
“In declining to hear these cases, the Supreme Court saw through the administration's contrived efforts to gin up a national crisis.” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “Unfortunately, the court's stay of the lower courts' preliminary orders means that courageous transgender service members will face discharges while challenges to the ban go forward. The Trump administration's cruel obsession with ridding our military of dedicated and capable service members because they happen to be transgender defies reason and cannot survive legal review.”
The trio of cases has drawn the interest of Big Law lawyers who have written briefs in support of transgender rights. Stephen Patton of Kirkland & Ellis, Scott Ballenger of Latham & Watkins Paul R.Q. Wolfson, co-chairman of appellate and Supreme Court litigation at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have taken the lead in the briefing.
The cases before the court are: Trump v. Karnoski, Trump v. Doe, and Trump v. Stockman. Patton wrote in his response brief in Karnoski, “The government now—for the first time and without pointing to any real-world urgency—seeks this Court's intervention, requesting that this Court remove the cases from the process of orderly appellate review through an extraordinary writ of certiorari before judgment.”
When Francisco urged expedited review late last year, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said, “The Trump administration has demonstrated no urgency that would justify leapfrogging the normal appellate process, and the military's own account shows no problems that need to be addressed. By the military's own account, inclusion of transgender service members makes our military stronger.”
Read more:
DC Circuit Gives Trump's Transgender Ban a Boost
|Marcia Coyle contributed reporting from Washington. This story was updated with additional comment about the Supreme Court's order Tuesday.
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 AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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