We Lost One

And this was an important case and it might indicate things to come in other court cases.

U.S. court rules for Trump on transgender military limits
Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
January 4, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court on Friday ruled in favor of a Trump administration policy barring certain transgender people from serving in the U.S. armed forces, handing the president his first legal victory on the issue after several defeats.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned a decision by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that blocked the policy, saying it likely violates the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.
[…]
The appeals court victory is limited because other federal courts issued injunctions against the policy, which applied nationwide. The administration already has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.

But it is still not good. What enlargement that won once can win again.

I wonder which judges voted for lifting the ban, one judge was appointed by Obama, one by Bush W. and the other judge by Reagan.

In a press release by GLAD, Jennifer Levi wrote,

Today’s ruling underscores the pressing need to educate people everywhere about transgender people’s lives. Every time we correct misunderstandings about transgender people promises a more hopeful future for our kids.

That sentiment was reflected in this article…

The Federal Judges Who Ruled in Favor of Trump’s Trans Ban Don’t Understand What It Means to Be Trans
Slate
By Mark Joseph Stern
January 04, 2019

The federal judiciary does not understand what it means to be transgender. And its ignorance may allow the Trump administration to justify its ban on open transgender military service by pretending that it is not a ban at all.
[…]
So leading anti-LGBTQ activists helped the Department of Defense produce a report that deployed anti-trans canards to rationalize the ban. As Slate reported in March, Vice President Mike Pence played a major role in creating this report, along with anti-trans extremists outside of the government like Ryan Anderson and Tony Perkins. Mattis adopted its findings and encouraged the president to bar transgender people from enlisting in the military and to discharge enlisted members who wish to transition. To prop up the ban’s legality, Mattis suggested that the president permit transgender troops who came out under the previous policy to continue serving. And, critically, he advised that transgender people be allowed to enlist and serve if they remain “in their biological sex.” Trump promptly implemented these recommendations.

This is what the court said,

Plaintiffs contended that the Mattis Plan’s exclusion of transgender persons who have gender dysphoria or who are unwilling to serve in their biological sex constitutes a blanket ban, arguing this case as if all transgender individuals either (1) have gender dysphoria or (2) transition to their preferred gender. They characterized these as “essential” and “defining” aspects of being transgender … [W]e can find nothing in the record to support this definition of being transgender … [T]he panel of experts convened by Secretary Mattis observed that there are transgender persons who “have served, and are serving, with distinction under the standards for their biological sex.”

This passage demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of transgender existence. It is true that not all trans people must transition medically to resolve their dysphoria. But most do—and the ban still only affects transgender people. The Mattis policy puts the vast majority of trans Americans in a Catch-22. They may serve if they do not transition, but if they do not transition, they will likely suffer gender dysphoria. And if they suffer gender dysphoria, they cannot serve. It is a targeted attack on transgender service, no matter how it’s packaged.

We need more than what Jennifer Levi said what we need is a miracle to get through the Supreme Court.