Luna
LightNews LightNews
banner
lunalikesplanes.bsky.social
Luna
@lunalikesplanes.bsky.social
19 followers 60 following 1 posts
Just a silly gal who likes planes and space and stuffs
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Luna
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here's the section @gabrielmalor.bsky.social is talking about —>
d. The Government's failure to provide and confront evidence reveal the Military Ban and Hegseth Policy would not survive even rational basis review Omissions in the Hegseth Policy further undermine the government's argument that the Military Ban forwards its stated interests. The government concedes20 there is no evidence that being transgender is inconsistent with "honesty," "humility," or "integrity," Military Ban § 2, Dkt. 31-1, and that being transgender "conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle," id. § 1. All of the government's failures illustrate that the Military Ban is not rationally related to the government's stated interest, let alone that it "significantly furthers" important governmental interests. The reliance on seven-year-old predictions from the Mattis Policy while ignoring the reality of years of open service is not reasonable and is not comparable to congressional debates and extensive records supporting the military 20 See Oral Argument Transcript, Dkt. 102 at 31. decision in Rostker and Goldman. The near complete absence of updated data here speaks for itself. The government had every opportunity to provide their own declarants to support their points or counter plaintiffs' evidence that open service did not hurt its stated interests. But it did not. The government's assertion that "trans-identifying persons achieved at least some version of their desired military policy from the last two Democratic Administrations and can reasonably be expected to do so again from the next Democratic Administration" is telling. Dkt. 76 at 24 (emphasis added). It very well is reasonable for transgender service members to expect that they be allowed to serve openly when they have done so successfully for years and the government lacks any evidence to justify banning them now. Equal Protection scrutiny does not fluctuate depending on what political party is in administration. The government's "better luck next administration" argument belies its assumption that the Court will defer blindly to the Military Ban without any meaningful review. It cannot and will not. The Military Ban and Hegseth Policy on the present record fails any level of Equal Protection scrutiny.
March 28, 2025 at 2:26 AM
Reposted by Luna
tiffvilchis.bsky.social
Judge Reyes for the WIN. She grants the injunction and trans rights prevail!!!
trumplitigation.bots.law Trump Litigation Bot @trumplitigation.bots.law · Mar 18
New filing: "Talbott v. Trump (Trans Military Ban (DDC))"
Doc #89: Memorandum & Opinion

Download PDF | View Full Case

#CL69583866
Thumbnail of page 1 of the PDF linked above. Thumbnail of page 2 of the PDF linked above. Thumbnail of page 3 of the PDF linked above. Thumbnail of page 4 of the PDF linked above.
March 18, 2025 at 10:48 PM