Gender Justice League Sues Trump Administration Over Transgender Military Ban

The Seattle nonprofit is a plaintiff in one of two new lawsuits against the ban.

“The United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military,” tweeted President Donald Trump on July 26. In addition to banning new enlistment and allowing discharge, Trump ordered that transgender service members be barred from promotion (“accession”) to officer-status, and he nixed federal money for “sex reassignment surgical procedures” for trans soldiers.

On Monday, two lawsuits were filed challenging the ban. One was in Maryland. The other was in Washington’s Western District Court.

The latter suit asks the court to issue a judgement declaring the ban unconstitutional, and to enjoin Trump and the military from enforcing the ban. One of the plaintiffs is Ryan Karnoski, a 22-year-old trans man who lives and works in Seattle as a mental health clinician. After his cousin was killed in action in Afghanistan in 2009, he realized that military service is “a personal calling for him,” according to the lawsuit’s complaint.

Another is Staff Sergeant Cathrine Schmid, a 33-year-old trans woman who lives in Lakewood and is currently stationed as a Brigade Land and Ammunition Manager at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. According to the compliant, she “has always been a patriotic American with a desire to serve,” and has been held back from promotion because of Trump’s order.

A third plaintiff, identified only by the initials DL, is a trans male high school student in Corpus Christi, Texas, who wants to serve in the Air Force as a Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape trainer.

These individuals are joined by two organizational plaintiffs: national LGBT advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign and the Gender Justice League, a Seattle-based nonprofit.

“Dripping with animus, the Ban and the current accessions bar violate the equal process and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment,” reads the complaint, filed by Lambda Legal and OutServe SLDN, an organization that supports LGBT soldiers and vets. “They are unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification.”

Trans service members were first formally permitted in 2016, at the end of President Barack Obama’s term. At the time, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said excluding trans people from the military limits the pool of talent available. “The Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now—the finest fighting force the world has ever known,” he said, according to NPR.

Part of Trump’s rationale for the ban is the cost of medical care for transgender soldiers. According to a Department of Defense study cited in the lawsuit, the cost of gender transitional health care for active-duty service members is between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually. By comparison, the lawsuit argues, “it would cost $960 million to recruit and train the replacements for all the transgender individuals who are currently serving in the military.”

The lawsuit also argues that Trump did not even go through the motions of apolitical deliberation before announcing the ban, choosing instead to surprise the Pentagon with series of cliffhanger tweets:

“Before the President’s Twitter announcement, other top Pentagon officials were similarly unaware of his decision to ban transgender individuals from the military,” reads the complaint. “In fact, in the nine minutes between the President’s tweet at 8:55 a.m. Eastern Time…and his next tweet at 9:04 a.m. Eastern Time, there were concerns that President Trump was declaring war on North Korea.”

“The Ban and current accessions bar are motivated by impermissible animus towards transgender people and are thus invalid as a whole,” reads the complaint. “The Ban and the current accessions bar lack adequate tailoring and fail to serve even a legitimate governmental interest. Indeed, they epitomize the very kind of arbitrary and capricious government action that the Due Process Clause forbids.”

cjaywork@seattleweekly.com

More in News & Comment

Early wake-up call: Twin quakes under Monroe rattle region

Thousands of people felt them. They were magnitude 4.6 and 3.5 and hit minutes apart.

Warning sign for a road closure. File photo
King County examines options to fund roads and bridges

Shortfall is roughly $250 million each year; county may seek tax from unincorporated voters.

City of Everett wins in bikini barista federal court case

The baristas are unsure of their next steps but may file for a rehearing, their lawyer said.

Dozens of wedding gowns stolen from Lynnwood boutique

Some brides-to-be may be left without a dress after a burglary at Brides and Beyond.

As time expires, Eyman lacks signatures for anti-tax measure

In spite of the setback, Eyman still has an initiative dealing with car tabs on the November ballot.

State Senate to conduct inquiry into public comments by Mona Das

District 47 senator claimed racism, sexism present at Democratic caucus meetings

Tensions run high at Renton library over Drag Queen Story Hour

Supporters and protesters traded chants at June 27 event.

Snohomish County is a vacation hotspot — for Seattleites

People seeking relative peace and quiet are boosting the area’s third-biggest industry.

She’d go back to prison if it would erase her $7.6M debt

Christine Hendrickson stole expensive software from Microsoft. She’ll never pay off the restitution.

Where’s the next Sea-Tac? Aviation here is expected to soar

A new study predicts demand for airline service in the Puget Sound region will double by 2050.

Mountain biking, disc golf mark seasons shift at Stevens

Widely known for its winter wonderland, summer at Stevens Pass offers other opportunities.

SeaTac man guilty of 1987 murders solved with DNA technique

In an unprecedented trial, a jury convicted William Talbott in the slayings of a young Canadian couple.