The Supreme Court ruled today that the government could go ahead to enforce its policy that limits the ability of transgender individuals to serve in the armed forces. In order to understand why this is the proper result, you need to look at the background of the case.
1. Until the middle of 2016, transgender individuals could not serve in the armed forces. Then, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Obama administration changed those rules and opened the service up to transgenders. There were no limits on such service of any sort.
2. In 2017, the Trump administration reversed that new rule and ultimately put in place a new policy. Under that policy, transgenders could join the military, but those who want to get surgery for sexual reassignment would not be eligible to join or stay in the forces. This would mean that the government would not be responsible for the very costly surgery and follow up care for such surgery.
3. A district court in California ruled that the administration could not follow that policy since it was illegally discriminatory. The court enjoined the military from following the policy anywhere in the USA.
4. The case went up on appeal to the 9th Circuit where it is in the process of being argued. Meanwhile, the government appealed to the Supreme Court to stay the district court injunction while the appeal is pending. This will let the courts consider the issue and would let the government follow its policy without interference unless and until the appeal is completed and a ruling issued against the government. In other words, the policy would stay in effect unless the plaintiffs win the appeal.
The Supreme Court stayed the effectiveness of the district court injunction today. This is clearly the right decision from SCOTUS. One federal district court ought not be able to issue an order stopping the federal government from following a new policy until after the court system issues a final judgment on the matter. For the last years, the district courts have often jumped into the fray and interfered with the proper functioning of the federal government. One local judge should not have that power.
1. Until the middle of 2016, transgender individuals could not serve in the armed forces. Then, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Obama administration changed those rules and opened the service up to transgenders. There were no limits on such service of any sort.
2. In 2017, the Trump administration reversed that new rule and ultimately put in place a new policy. Under that policy, transgenders could join the military, but those who want to get surgery for sexual reassignment would not be eligible to join or stay in the forces. This would mean that the government would not be responsible for the very costly surgery and follow up care for such surgery.
3. A district court in California ruled that the administration could not follow that policy since it was illegally discriminatory. The court enjoined the military from following the policy anywhere in the USA.
4. The case went up on appeal to the 9th Circuit where it is in the process of being argued. Meanwhile, the government appealed to the Supreme Court to stay the district court injunction while the appeal is pending. This will let the courts consider the issue and would let the government follow its policy without interference unless and until the appeal is completed and a ruling issued against the government. In other words, the policy would stay in effect unless the plaintiffs win the appeal.
The Supreme Court stayed the effectiveness of the district court injunction today. This is clearly the right decision from SCOTUS. One federal district court ought not be able to issue an order stopping the federal government from following a new policy until after the court system issues a final judgment on the matter. For the last years, the district courts have often jumped into the fray and interfered with the proper functioning of the federal government. One local judge should not have that power.
No comments:
Post a Comment