Facts
- In June 2016, the Department of Defense adopted a policy permitting transgender individuals to serve openly and subject to the same standards as other service members, with implementation plans for accessions and medical care.
- On July 26, 2017, the President publicly announced that transgender individuals would not be accepted or allowed to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military, citing asserted medical costs and disruption.
- On August 25, 2017, a presidential memorandum directed the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to reinstate a prohibition on transgender accessions, authorize discharge of openly transgender service members, and halt funding for certain transition-related surgical procedures (with limited exceptions).
- Individual plaintiffs included transgender service members and prospective enlistees; organizational plaintiffs included advocacy and service-member organizations.
- Plaintiffs sued federal officials and agencies, alleging violations of Fifth Amendment equal protection and substantive due process and the First Amendment.
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the memorandum; the government moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing and lack of ripeness based on an asserted ongoing military review process.
Issues
- Whether plaintiffs had standing and whether the dispute was ripe notwithstanding the government’s claim that the policy was under review.
- Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
- Whether the challenged directives discriminate based on transgender status (and/or sex) and therefore trigger heightened scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component.
- Whether the government’s asserted interests (readiness, unit cohesion, and costs) were supported and sufficient to justify the challenged directives.
Decision
- The court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs had standing and the controversy was ripe.
- The court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the memorandum’s directives concerning transgender accessions, discharge authorization, and restrictions on funding certain transition-related surgeries.
- The court ordered maintenance of the preexisting framework permitting open transgender service pending further proceedings.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the Fifth Amendment equal protection claim and found “serious questions” supporting additional constitutional theories, with the injunction justified on equal protection grounds alone.
- The court found irreparable harm to plaintiffs from stigma, career and financial uncertainty, and disruption to medical care, and concluded the balance of equities and public interest favored preserving the status quo.
Legal Principles
- A presidential directive that is operative and produces present, concrete effects can be justiciable even if the government asserts ongoing review.
- Discrimination based on transgender status may be treated as a sex-based classification and can warrant heightened scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component.
- Under heightened scrutiny, the government must show the challenged classification is substantially related to an important governmental interest and supported by genuine, record-based justifications rather than post hoc rationales.
- Evidence that a policy reversal targeting a historically disfavored group lacks a deliberative record and is inconsistent with prior governmental findings can support an inference that the asserted interests are unsupported at the preliminary-injunction stage.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate where plaintiffs show likely success (or sufficiently serious questions with equitable factors), irreparable harm not compensable by damages, and that equities and public interest favor maintaining the status quo.
Conclusion
The court held the challenge to the transgender military-service ban directives was ripe and properly brought, and it issued a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing enforcement while litigation proceeded because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment equal protection claim and faced immediate, irreparable harms absent injunctive relief.