‘Striking’: DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon’s transgender military ban policy
A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon’s transgender military ban policy and a lower court’s finding of animus behind the ban.
Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday’s oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect.
“We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons,” Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. “And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy.”
FEDERAL JUDGE DENIES TRUMP ADMIN’S EFFORT TO BAN TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM MILITARY
D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was “soaked in animus” and discriminated based on a person’s transgender status.
Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not.
“The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus,” Manion responded.
Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand “does something that is so extraordinarily unusual.”
“The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that,” Minter said.
Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the “irreparable harm” the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes’ order.
Manion argued that Reyes’ order not only affects the military’s competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president’s constitutional powers.
Manion argued that the “main injuries” include the inability to enforce what the Department believes “to be a valid policy.”
Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about.
“How has the military worked under a different policy?” Pillard asked. “It’s striking to me that the government…has not stymied that.”
Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place “on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage.”
“Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?” Katsas asked.
Manion said he believed some conditions “undergo an individualized process” in those situations.
Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment.
“This is a core area of presidential power,” Manion said. “[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here.”
Minter likewise argued that there is “no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation,” saying “every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job.”
“We don’t talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that’s just a red flag,” Minter said.
No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court.
Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were “encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay.”
“The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership,” Minter said. “Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure.”
At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding “trans-identifying medical standards for military service” and to “rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness.”
In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit “face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm” that would warrant a preliminary injunction.”
The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21.
In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead “turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class.”
After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes’ request, Reyes denied the government’s motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter.
Fox News Digital’s Diana Stancy contributed to this report.
About The Author
