Judge Rules Govt. Will Not Be ‘Injured’ by Allowing ‘Transgender’ Enlistment in Military Jan. 1

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request to place a hold on her order allowing those who identify as the opposite sex to enlist in the military beginning Jan. 1.

“In sum, having carefully considered all of the evidence before it, the court is not persuaded that Defendants will be irreparably injured by allowing the accession of transgender individuals into the military beginning on January 1, 2018,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton, wrote in an opinion on Monday.

“To the extent Defendants argue that accepting transgender individuals on January 1, 2018 would harm military readiness, the court directs defendants to the court’s finding in its October 30, 2017 memorandum opinion that, on the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that service of transgender individuals would have any negative effect on the military at all,” she asserted. Read the order in full here.

As previously reported, Trump announced his decision to reinstate the ban on transgenders in the military in July, advising that the issue is a distraction and would place a burden on the finances of the Armed Forces.

“After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” he tweeted. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgenders in the military would entail. Thank you.”

Weeks later, five service members filed suit to challenge the ban, with the assistance of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders.

“Because they identified themselves as transgender in reliance on [the government’s] earlier promise [of lifting the ban], Plaintiffs have lost the stability and certainty they had in their careers and benefits, including post-military and retirement benefits that depend on the length of their service,” the lawsuit read.

  • Connect with Christian News

Kollar-Kotelly issued an injunction in favor of the complainants in October, writing in part, “On the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”

However, while Kollar-Kotelly blocked Trump’s ban from being enforced, she also declined to place a restraining order on the government ban on paying for “sex reassignment” surgeries.

“[N]o plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are substantially likely to be impacted by the sex reassignment surgery directive, and none have standing to challenge that directive,” she wrote as none of the plaintiffs had proven that they would not be able to obtain their desired operations before the prohibition took effect in March 2018.

After the government sought clarification on whether or not Kollar-Kotelly’s enlistment order “prohibit[s] the secretary of defense from exercising his discretion to defer the January 1, 2018 effective date,” she advised that there could be no postponement.

The U.S. Department of Justice asked for a stay on Wednesday, but Kollar-Kotelly opined that there was no reason for enlistment not to go forward as per the Obama administration’s original memorandum.

The Pentagon says that it will comply with the ruling for now, but is also working on appealing the order.

“As required by recent federal district court orders, the Department of Defense recently announced it will begin processing transgender applicants for military service on January 1, 2018. This policy will be implemented while the Department of Justice appeals those court orders,” the U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement.

“The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered DoD to implement, effective January 1, 2018, the accession policy issued by former Secretary Carter in 2016. DoD and the Department of Justice are actively pursuing relief from those court orders in order to allow an ongoing policy review scheduled to be completed before the end of March,” it explained.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Nidalap

    Yay. The societal experimentation continues…

  • Lexical Cannibal

    Government: *proceeds to immediately injure self* SEE? SEE?!

    That’s basically what we’re doing with taxes and social services right now…

  • Robin Egg

    These activist “judges” can rule all they want. The President is chief executive and head of the military and what he says goes.

    • SFBruce

      It’s certainly true that Trump is president, but he’s not king; so there are limits to “what he says goes,” as we see in this decision.

      • meamsane

        But you seem to think that the Judicial branch is king? Huh?

        • SFBruce

          Why would you think that? I do, however, believe that we’re a constitutional republic, and I believe in the separation of powers detailed in it. Do you believe that whatever the president says goes, and the courts have no place in determining the legality or constitutionality of the president’s actions?

          • meamsane

            I believe that the President has Constitutional authority for that which is enumerated in article II of the Constitution regarding the powers of the Executive. I never said anything about “whatever the President says goes”!

            That said, regarding the Executive branch, Article II Sec. II states that the President is Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and can direct them as such.
            Regarding the Legislative branch Article I Sec. 8 states: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.

            The military power has been granted to the Legislative and executive branches of government.
            What authority has the Judicial branch have that can demand the President must allow “transgenders” in the military and can usurp authority enumerated in the Constitution to the two other branches of government?

            Clearly Congress has the power to write the rules/regulations for the military. If they desired, they could allow/disallow transgenders as well but seems that they have allowed the President to make this decision as they allowed Obama to do the opposite. So, can the federal Judiciary act as a legislature and usurp a duty and power of Congress or the President?

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Leftist Judges are now running the Pentagon:Oh rejoice! Another victory for political correctness! The military has to be sensitive to everyone’s needs, even if that means completely sending readiness down the Pentagon commode.

  • SFBruce

    This is a good decision. The real harm would be to disallow otherwise qualified individuals who want to serve their country the opportunity to do so. Trump’s action to announce such a change to military eligibility in a tweet is incomprehensible. With no thought to the consequences to those already serving honorably, our president, who never served himself, dropped this bombshell. I think it would be a huge mistake to disallow trans people the opportunity to serve, but even if you think this policy is needed, suddenly announcing it with a tweet is the worst possible way to implement it.

    • Recognizing_Truth

      Really @SFBruce:disqus? This is a good decision?

      Someone who can’t decide who they are, who bases things on ever-changing feelings, who can’t accept the orders of nature and attempts to disobey them by doing it all their own way, someone who is dissatisfied and depressed over the cards they’ve been dealt – this is someone who you want to make up an elite fighting machine that needs to be ready at a moment’s notice and overcome personal opinion and feeling and follow orders, as given, when given?

      That’s not a military, that’s a disaster waiting to be overrun by enemy armies.

    • Chet

      This was a horse dung decision of no merit whatsoever, save to draw flies. Those desirous to serve in the military, regardless of their feelings, should indeed be allowed to do so. However, they must serve in the capacity of birth and wear the appropriate uniform, use the proper latrine and showers and quarters and conduct themselves as natural and not in accordance with society’s modern day nonsense. And not a dime further spent on the matter of one supposing himself/herself to somehow becoming someone else…

  • Recognizing_Truth

    The government will not be injured…perhaps. But society will be injured.
    Any time society is forced to accept someone else’s delusion and to enable it, encourage it, to pay for the deluded to seek satisfaction in the delusion, and to require a change by all of the other members of society’s actions to agree with the delusion – it suffers greatly.
    It suffers because reality and even science are tossed aside and opinion and feeling are elevated to be the determining factors.
    It suffers because truth – which is truth because it is objectively true and universally applicable – is abandoned and is replaced with relativism.
    It suffers because it denies society the right to reject absurdity.

  • Chet

    Next, the federal judge will be determining mission dictates, directing manpower, obtaining funding, and factoring logistics within the military services, thereby eliminating the need for a Sec Def. Since when does the Commander in Chief’s decisions no longer stand as the bottom line authority…