The Trump administration may start implementing its ban on transgender service members immediately, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court.
The president has been trying to convince the high court to release elements of his second term agenda that have been blocked by lower courts examining many legal challenges to his policies, and this decision is a huge triumph for him.
The court’s decision was unexplained, as is typical with emergency judgments. In addition to openly disagreeing with the outcome, the three liberal justices offered no explanation for their dissenting opinions.
The Supreme Court allowed Trump to impose a comparable, but marginally more lenient, ban on transgender military members during his first term in office. President Joe Biden subsequently reversed that ban.
“duty members who have a current diagnosis or history of, or display symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria shall be processed for separation from military duty,” reads the policy paper that lays out the new restriction.
There is zero tolerance for transgender people in the United States military, according to the Pentagon.
A 2018 estimate by an independent research agency put the number of transgender troops serving at 14,000, however the precise number is unknown.
An individual’s gender dysphoria, which is the psychological anguish experienced when one’s gender identity differs from their gender at birth, affects 4,240 service personnel across active-duty, reserve, and the National Guard, according to a senior defense official who previously spoke with AWN. However, gender dysphoria does not affect all transgender people.
Shortly after assuming the presidency in January, Trump signed an executive order mandating that the Pentagon enforce its own policy stating that transgender service members cannot serve in the military. The administration has said that the military’s lethality, preparedness, and cohesiveness would suffer if transgender people were allowed to serve in the United States.
But federal judges who looked into the complaints against the program found that it was unconstitutional because it discriminated against transgender people.
Judge Benjamin Settle, sitting in a Washington state courthouse, stated that the administration “fails to contend with the reality that transgender service members have served openly for at least four years under (policies from previous administrations) without any discernable harm to military readiness, cohesion, order, or discipline” in the case that was appealed to the justices on an emergency basis.
The judge criticized the policy that Biden implemented while in office, writing, “It provides no evidence to counter plaintiffs’ showing that open transgender service has in fact enhanced each of these interests.”
That Settle had moved too far into the realm of military policy was the contention of the government. Following a denial by a federal appeals court in San Francisco, it requested that the justices temporarily halt his judgment.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated in court documents that the injunction issued by the district court “could not be squared” with the proper respect due to the Department’s expert military judgments.
A policy that the military has “determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the Nation’s interests” would be maintained until the Supreme Court takes action, he stressed.
However, the counter-suspects’ legal teams have asked the Supreme Court to refrain from taking up the issue at this time (US v. Shilling). They cautioned that thousands of service personnel would be discharged immediately if the administration’s case was successful, “thereby ending distinguished careers and gouging holes in military units.”
“The high court will unavoidably be adversely affected by the loss of highly skilled servicemembers such as (those challenging the ban) on military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion – vital elements of a robust and efficient national defense,” they informed the justices.
The US District Judge Ana Reyes’ preliminary injunction is currently being considered by the US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is another significant obstacle to the program.