The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members.
[1][2][3][4] In addition to President Trump, the suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense (James Mattis), the Army (Ryan McCarthy, acting), the Navy (Richard Spencer), and the Air Force (Heather Wilson).
[5]: 1 Trump first announced a policy banning transgender people from serving in the military in "any capacity" in a series of tweets on July 26, 2017, stating that allowing such service members would incur "tremendous medical costs and disruption".
The complaint cited news articles that "indicate that President Trump's motivations in abruptly announcing a transgender ban were largely political, reflecting a desire to placate legislators and advisers who bear animus and moral disapproval toward men and women who are transgender" and further stated there was "no evidence that this about-face in policy was supported by any study of the issue or any consultation with military officers, DoD [Department of Defense] officials, other military experts, or medical or legal experts".
The Ban reflects a decision to single out a disfavored group and withdraw legal protection based not on evidence but animus, moral disapproval, and crass political calculation."
The memorandum also argued that "each day that President Trump’s unconstitutional directive remains in effect, Plaintiffs and their families continue to grapple with the stress and uncertainty of having their careers, their livelihoods, and their medical care jeopardized by a Commander-in-Chief who rejects their service and their sacrifice.
"[10]: 2 The United States Department of Justice Civil Division (USDOJ) filed a motion to dismiss on October 12, 2017, calling the request for a preliminary injunction "premature several times over" as Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance of September 14, 2017 would prevent involuntary discharge, separation, or denied re-enlistment at least until March 2018.
[18] USDOJ argued on November 7 the preliminary injunction in Doe v. Trump "has, in large measure, provided Plaintiffs with the remedy that they seek at this stage" and "[t]his Court should therefore stay all proceedings".
[19] President Trump’s tweets did not emerge from a policy review, nor did the Presidential Memorandum identify any policymaking process or evidence demonstrating that the revocation of transgender rights was necessary for any legitimate national interest.
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.On November 21, 2017, Judge Marvin J. Garbis issued a preliminary injunction to the entire Presidential Memorandum of August 25.
"[30]: 3, 4 In support, USDOJ stated "that implementation [of accession] was put on hold on August 25, 2017" and "the military will still have to take significant steps in order to meet an unexpected January 1 deadline".
[32] USDOJ argued "Secretary Mattis cannot, without risking contempt, exercise his independent authority to give the military more time to consider a momentous change to its accession standards" and produced a follow-up memorandum, dated December 19.