The White House calls on the Supreme Court to speed up the settlement of its transgender military ban: NPR

The Justice Ministry on Friday asked the Supreme Court to bypass the lower courts and quickly rule on its ban on most transgender soldiers.

This is not the first time that the administration is asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the appeal process. In January, he asked the Supreme Court to expedite the handling of cases involving the Trump administration's plan to terminate the DACA, or deferred action for child arrivals. The federal program protects immigrant youth from deportation. This request was refused – but the Department of Justice asked the question again a few weeks ago.

In order for a case to be circumvented in the courts below, it must be of "imperative public importance" – sufficiently important to warrant a change in the process being considered by the courts of appeal, and sufficiently "sufficient to require an immediate decision of this Court ", according to the Supreme Court. rules.

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco's official request stated that the White House's ban on transgender military members "met this standard."

The draft policy in question was sent to the President in February by Defense Secretary James Mattis. These rules would disqualify service members "who need or have undergone gender transition". People without a history of gender dysphoria would be forced to serve under their biological sex.

This proposal replaced President Trump's plan to ban all transgender military members, which he has announced via Twitter in 2017.

Mattis argued that the Obama era policy was largely based on a 2016 study of the RAND company commissioned by the Department of Defense. He said that this study "contained significant gaps".

This RAND study concluded that transition-related health care costs would be relatively low compared to overall spending on health care in the Department of Defense. It turns out that existing research on foreign armed forces indicates that allowing transgender members has "little or no impact on the cohesion, operational efficiency or readiness of the military". ;unit".

"It's just another attempt by a reckless Trump administration to push through a discriminatory policy," said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director, in a statement. "The policy contradicts military research and dozens of leading military experts.

GLAD, GLBTQ's lawyer and legal advocates, represents plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump – two of the three cases that the Ministry of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review.

"It seems that the Trump administration is eager to discriminate," said Peter Renn, Legal Counsel for Lambda Legal, in a statement. "There is no valid reason to overrule and seek a review of the US Supreme Court before the appellate courts even ruled on the preliminary issues before them. "

Lambda Legal, with OutServe-SLDN, represents the applicants in Karnoski v Trump, the third case in question.