Why Are Transgender Individuals Banned From The Army? The Legal Battle Explained.

The debate surrounding the inclusion of transgender individuals in the military has been a complex and highly controversial issue, with legal battles spanning several years. The decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces has sparked intense discussions on both ethical and practical grounds. This article aims to delve into the legal aspects of this issue, exploring the reasons behind the ban and the subsequent legal challenges it has faced.

The Evolution of Transgender Policies in the Military

The relationship between transgender individuals and the military has undergone significant transformations over the years. Prior to 2016, the U.S. military had a long-standing policy of excluding transgender individuals from openly serving in its ranks. This policy, rooted in a combination of medical and administrative regulations, effectively barred individuals with a history of gender dysphoria or gender transition from enlisting or continuing their service.

However, in 2016, a shift in policy was proposed by the Obama administration, which aimed to allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. This proposed change was based on the belief that transgender individuals should be evaluated based on their military qualifications and skills rather than their gender identity. The policy change was intended to foster a more inclusive and diverse military force, recognizing the contributions that transgender individuals could make.

Key Points of the Proposed Policy:

• Transgender individuals would be allowed to serve openly without the risk of discharge or discrimination.
• The military would provide medical support and gender transition-related care for transgender service members.
• The policy change was expected to take effect in July 2017, with a full implementation period of several years.

Despite the proposed policy change, the issue became a political battleground, with opposing views on the impact of transgender individuals on military readiness and cohesion. This led to a series of legal challenges and policy reversals, ultimately resulting in the current ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military.

The Legal Battle: Key Cases and Rulings

The legal battle surrounding the transgender ban in the military has been multifaceted, with multiple cases being filed in various courts across the United States. Here, we delve into some of the key cases and the rulings that have shaped the current policy.

Jane Doe v. Trump (2017)

In July 2017, just days before the proposed policy change was set to take effect, President Trump announced a series of tweets stating that transgender individuals would not be allowed to serve in the military. This abrupt reversal sparked immediate legal action, with several lawsuits being filed against the administration.

One of the most prominent cases was Jane Doe v. Trump, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of several transgender service members and applicants. The plaintiffs argued that the ban violated their constitutional rights, including the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They also claimed that the ban was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it lacked a rational basis and was based on prejudice rather than military necessity.

The case made its way through the courts, with several rulings in favor of the plaintiffs. In October 2017, a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the implementation of the ban. The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the ban was unconstitutional and that it caused irreparable harm to transgender service members and applicants.

Stockman v. Trump (2017)

Another significant case, Stockman v. Trump, was filed by a group of conservative legal organizations, including the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom. The plaintiffs in this case argued that the proposed policy change would violate the religious freedoms of service members and create an environment of moral decline.

The case faced several setbacks, with multiple courts ruling against the plaintiffs. In December 2017, a federal judge in Texas denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the policy change to proceed. The judge found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

Karnoski v. Trump (2018)

In Karnoski v. Trump, a group of transgender service members and applicants, along with the ACLU, challenged the constitutionality of the transgender ban. The plaintiffs argued that the ban violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

In December 2017, a federal judge in Washington state issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the implementation of the ban. The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the ban was motivated by animus towards transgender individuals and that it lacked a rational basis.

The Supreme Court’s Intervention

As the legal battles continued, the issue reached the Supreme Court, which granted a request from the Trump administration to review three cases challenging the transgender ban: Stockman v. Trump, Karnoski v. Trump, and Osterhout v. Trump. In January 2019, the Supreme Court lifted the nationwide injunctions, allowing the ban to take effect while the cases were being reviewed.

In June 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, upholding the transgender ban. The majority opinion, written by Justice Roberts, argued that the military's judgment on matters of military discipline and readiness should be given deference by the courts. The decision was met with criticism from LGBTQ rights advocates and legal scholars, who argued that the ruling failed to adequately address the constitutional concerns raised by the plaintiffs.

The Impact and Future of Transgender Inclusion in the Military

The legal battle over the transgender ban has had far-reaching consequences for transgender individuals seeking to serve their country. The ban has not only impacted those currently serving but has also deterred potential transgender applicants from pursuing military careers.

Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the issue remains a topic of debate and advocacy. LGBTQ rights organizations and allies continue to push for the repeal of the ban, arguing that transgender individuals should be evaluated based on their abilities and qualifications rather than their gender identity. They point to successful examples of transgender individuals serving in other militaries around the world, such as the British and Canadian armed forces, which have policies that allow for open service.

Additionally, the impact of the ban extends beyond the military. It has sent a message to transgender individuals across the country, reinforcing the idea that their gender identity is a barrier to full participation in society. This has significant implications for transgender rights and equality, not only in the military but also in other areas of public life.

Key Takeaways and Future Prospects:

• The legal battle has highlighted the complex intersection of military policy, constitutional law, and LGBTQ rights.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling has set a precedent, but the fight for transgender inclusion in the military continues.
• Advocates are pushing for a policy change that aligns with modern values of equality and non-discrimination.
• The impact of the ban extends beyond the military, influencing societal perceptions of transgender individuals.
• The future of transgender inclusion in the military remains uncertain, but the legal and social landscape is evolving.