The Trump administration on Thursday took its move to ban transgender people from serving in the military to the Supreme Court.
In a filing, Solicitor General Dean John Sauer told the justices that the district court’s universal injunction enjoining the military from enacting its prohibition based on mental health undermines the executive branch’s authority through its Defense Department.
He asked the justices to stay the injunction while the case works its way through the courts.
“The Department rationally determined that service by individuals with gender dysphoria would undermine military effectiveness and lethality — consistent with similar, longstanding determinations for a wide range of other medical conditions (such as asthma and hypertension),” Mr. Sauer wrote.
The contested order from President Trump was issued in February, disqualifying transgender people from military service if they suffer from gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions.
“The policy was based in part on the findings of a panel of experts convened during the first Trump Administration, which found that service by individuals with gender dysphoria was contrary to ‘military effectiveness and lethality,’” the filing read.
It noted that the same policy was implemented during the first Trump administration, and a lower court blocked it, but the Supreme Court lifted that move. The White House is asking the justices to do the same this time.
The challenge was brought by seven transgender people, some of whom are in the military, while another wishes to join.
They say the order runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment and due process rights.
The lower court out of Washington state issued an injunction, stopping the administration from implementing the policy while the issue is litigated.
Mr. Sauer’s request to the justices asks that the injunction be lifted so the policy can be implemented while the lawsuit plays out.
The high court ordered a response from the challengers to be filed by May 1.
The case is United States of America v. Emily Shilling.
