Second US judge halts Trump ban on transgender troops
Share this article
WASHINGTON, Nov 22 — A second federal judge yesterday blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the US military, ruling that the prohibition likely amounted to unconstitutional discrimination.
US District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore ruled that the ban lacked justification and “cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” His ruling followed a similar one by a federal judge in Washington on October 30.
Garbis, appointed to the federal bench by former Republican president George Bush in 1989, went further than the Washington judge by also blocking the government’s directive to stop funding sex-reassignment surgery while the case moves forward, as some of the plaintiffs would be impacted by the prohibition.
Trump announced in July he would ban transgender people from the military, citing concern over military focus and medical costs. The move would reverse former Democratic President Barack Obama’s policy of accepting them.
Several service members, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in August alleging the ban violated their right under the US Constitution to equal protection under the law.
Lead plaintiff Brock Stone, 34, has served in the US Navy for 11 years and wants to remain for at least 20 years, according to court papers.
After his policy announcement on Twitter, Trump signed a memorandum in August directing the armed forces not to accept transgender people as recruits and stopped the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgeries for active-duty personnel unless the process was already underway.
The memo called on Defence Secretary James Mattis to submit a plan to the Republican president by February 21 on how to implement the changes, and the Pentagon has created a panel of senior officials for that purpose. In the meantime, the current policy of allowing transgender people to serve remained in place.
Garbis said the transgender ban was not driven by genuine concerns for military efficacy.
“The lack of any justification for the abrupt policy change, combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military service members who have served our country capably and honorably, cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” he wrote in his ruling.
A US Department of Justice representative could not immediately be reached.
The ACLU also could not be reached. — Reuters