A SEVENTH U.S. Court Officially Rejects Trump’s Trans Military Ban

"Being transgender has no impact on my ability to perform my duties."
A person in a soldiers uniform.
Bloomberg/Getty Images

On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s latest attempt to push through a ban on transgender military service.

In a court filing, appeals court judges Tashima, Silverman, and Graber denied Trump’s request to lift a lower court’s December 11 decision to block the trans ban from taking effect. The judges’ short ruling says that the earlier injunction “preserves the status quo, allowing transgender service members to serve in the military in their preferred gender and receive transition-related care.” Basically, the court decided that trans people are already serving in the military, and Trump hasn’t been able to present a good reason for kicking them out.

In a statement provided by Lambda Legal, Washington-based Staff Sergeant Cathrine (Katie) Schmid — who has served over 12 years in the U.S. Army — expressed relief at the ruling.

“Being transgender has no impact on my ability to perform my duties,” said Schmid. “I’m grateful that the courts to date have recognized the value in our service, and I look forward to the day when we can put this argument behind us and focus on what's really important-- the accomplishment of our mission, and the welfare of our service members.”

The fight isn’t over yet; the Trump administration sought a stay from the Ninth Circuit while it appeals the December ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Trump has already tried to appeal that court’s ruling and failed — on April 13, the Washington district court rejected the administration’s attempt at reframing the trans ban under a new executive memorandum issued March 23. But the court said that memo barely differed from Trump’s earlier ban on transgender troops.

The case is set to go to trial in April 2019. Until then, trans troops continue to serve under unsure and unstable circumstances.

Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn called Trump’s trans military ban “blatant and impermissible discrimination.”

“It has been one year since President Trump announced via tweet his plan to bar transgender people from the military, and in that year four district courts and, now, three courts of appeal have blocked its implementation,” said Renn in a statement on Wednesday. “What more evidence does the administration need before it abandons this discriminatory and harmful scheme to prevent brave and qualified transgender people from serving their country?”

The lawsuit, Karnoski v. Trump, represents nine transgender plaintiffs — six of whom are currently serving in the armed forces, and three aspiring troops who want to enlist. Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN are representing the trans troops as well as three groups that joined the lawsuit on behalf of their trans members: Human Rights Campaign, Gender Justice League, and the American Military Partner Association.

If the Ninth Circuit trial (slated for April 2019) results in another appeal, the case would move next to the Supreme Court — where two right-leaning Trump appointees could tip the court in favor of the administration's ban.

”Every court ruling has been consistent and unequivocal: the ban on transgender military service is discrimination, no matter how it’s phrased and no matter the myriad ways the administration has tried to cloak its intent,” said OutServe-SLDN Legal Director Peter Perkowski in a statement on Wednesday. “The administration has failed to come up with any adequate rationale for the president’s ill-conceived tweets of last July that justifies their blatant discriminatory nature, and we are confident it never will.”