Legal team tells D.C. appeals court Hegseth's words show Trump's trans military ban is about hate, not policy
Briefly

The legal team representing transgender plaintiffs in the Talbott v. United States case has filed an urgent letter countering the implication of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. They argue that the Court's ruling in a separate case does not apply to their challenge of President Trump's transgender military ban. Citing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, the team emphasizes that the Trump policy has been found to violate the Equal Protection Clause and is rooted in anti-transgender bias, which distinguishes it from the other cases.
The district court in didn't rule on animus at all," NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter told The Advocate. "The court did-and that legal distinction matters. The Supreme Court's order says nothing about animus, and it would be improper for the D.C. Circuit to assume it applies to a different ruling based on a completely different legal foundation.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who issued the nationwide injunction in on March 18, ruled that the Trump administration's executive order and so-called [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth Policy most likely violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. She wrote that the order was "soaked with animus and dripping with pretext," and that it would impose immediate and irreparable harm on transgender troops by categorically stigmatizing them as unfit.
Read at Advocate.com
[
|
]