Jane Doe v. Trump Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals by Donald Trump (August 25, 2017)

on august 9, 2017, 5 transgender united states military personnel filed lawsuit, jane doe v. trump. sued trump , top pentagon officials on proposed banning of transgender people serving in military. suit asks court prevent ban going effect, under auspices of equal protection , due process clauses of fifth amendment. suit filed on behalf 2 major lgbt-rights organizations, glbtq legal advocates & defenders (glad) , national center lesbian rights, filed petition in united states district court in washington. on august 31, 2017, plaintiffs applied preliminary injunction on proposed ban, stating unconstitutional , plaintiffs have suffered serious , irreparable harms continue absent court s intervention. on august 31, 3 former secretaries of military services, eric fanning, ray mabus, , deborah lee james, submitted declarations in support of plaintiffs.

on october 4, civil division of department of justice filed motion dismiss amended complaint in jane doe v. trump , oppose application preliminary injunction, arguing instead challenge premature several times on , secretary mattis s interim guidance, issued on september 14, 2017, protects currently-serving transgender personnel involuntary discharge or denial of reenlistment. on october 30, 2017, judge colleen kollar-kotelly granted plaintiffs preliminary injunction on provisions of memorandum prohibiting open military service , enlistment of transgender people. pentagon s six-month delay on accession of transgender individuals military service expires january 1, 2018. in ruling, judge kollar-kotelly noted defendants motion dismiss case perhaps compelling in abstract, [but] wither[s] away under scrutiny. ruling reinstated policies established prior president trump s tweets announcing reinstatement of ban, namely retention , accession policies transgender personnel effective on june 30, 2017. however, court denied preliminary injunction against ban on government-funded sex reassignment surgery service members because no plaintiff has demonstrated substantially impacted directive. however, court denied preliminary injunction against ban on government-funded sex reassignment surgery service members because no plaintiff has demonstrated substantially impacted directive. on november 21, 2017, united states department of justice appealed preliminary injunction in case of jane doe v. trump.