This is the first win for the administration in litigation over the transgender military service policy — judges in DC, WA, and CA issued injunctions. The cases went up on appeal, but DOJ then petitioned SCOTUS before the circuits ruled, which was unusual:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/trump-transgender-military-ban-supreme-court …
-
-
Show this thread
-
SCOTUS hasn't weighed in yet, and now in the meantime the DC Circuit has issued a ruling. It's a per curiam judgment, and not "published," which means it's not precedent for the circuit and no one judge on the panel is the named author, it's just on behalf of the court
Show this thread -
In today's judgment, the panel held the lower court judge was wrong to say that there was no "significant change" between the ban announced by Trump on Twitter in 2017 and the "Mattis Plan" approved this year — the govt took "substantial steps" to fix problems with the formerpic.twitter.com/lzRIYGHaGk
Show this thread -
The court also said it was wrong to conclude the "Mattis Plan" was a blanket ban on service, saying the record indicated not all transgender people 1) have gender dysphoria and 2) transition — the ban's challengers had argued this just meant people had to suppress their identitypic.twitter.com/v9tKiHtXwe
Show this thread -
So to recap: The Trump administration got a favorable ruling today from the DC Circuit re: the transgender military service ban, but it doesn't change anything right now because there are injunctions still in place issued by other courts
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow, ok. Lots to parse here. There was a ban, that ban was blocked by injunction, that injunction was vacated...means....at least in the eyes of the DC Cir, the ban is valid?
-
No, they vacated a decision. That doesn't mean they decided the other way around, just that the last decision is invalid.
-
Thanks. Vacating blocks on bans is all too “double negative” for my brain this am!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Assuming this was 2-1 the Obama judge vs. the Reagan and Bush judges.
-
Per curium means no dissent issued.
-
Thanks. Guess Obama appointed some conservatives after all.
-
Not Wilkins. Sometimes law is law.
-
So, it's lawful to ban trans people from the military? That seems discriminatory.
-
We are talking about a preliminary injunction set by the district court. It’s a complicated issue with a long procedural history to explain here but the ruling is not on the merits of the policy.
-
Ok, got it. Thanks for the explainer! This is all kind of dense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One of the judges was an Obama appointee. Huge victory.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.