Led by a western Massachusetts lawyer, activists have filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s directive to prohibit transgender people from serving in the military.
In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights allege equal protection and due process rights violations under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution on behalf of five plaintiffs, all of whom go by a variation of Jane Doe.
“It’s necessary because there are thousands of transgender service members who notified their command of the fact that they are transgender when the military announced in June of 2016 that they could openly serve,” said Jennifer Levi, lead attorney on the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“These plaintiffs have been in the military from between three years and 20 years. They have bravely and courageously served our country and don’t deserve the slap in the face that Donald Trump is giving them.”
Levi is the director of GLAD’s transgender rights project. She also is a law professor and co-director at the Center for Transgender and Sexuality Studies at Western New England University in Springfield. She served as co-counsel for the seven same-sex couples who sued the commonwealth of Massachusetts for denying them the right to obtain marriage licenses. The appeal led to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2003 ruling that it was unconstitutional for the state to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
In a series of three tweets on the morning of July 26, Trump broadcast his intention.
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow …” he tweeted at 8:55 a.m.
“… Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming …” Trump tweeted nearly 10 minutes later.
“… victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you,” he concluded at 9:08 a.m.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, the nation’s top military officer, has said there will be no change to the Pentagon policy on transgender personnel until the White House issues an official directive. No such directive has yet emerged.
The Department of Defense commissioned the Rand Corp. to conduct an analysis of relevant data and studies to determine the impact of permitting transgender service members to serve openly.
The study, “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly,” found that the costs of gender transition-related health care treatment were relatively low. It estimated an increase of between $2.4 million and $8.4 million each year — 0.04 to 0.13 percent — in active duty health care expenditures.
A study released Aug. 9 by the Palm Center, an independent research institute, concluded that fully implementing Trump’s ban would cost $960 million in training for replacing the 12,800 affected service members.
If the directive were to be enacted, service by openly transgender service members would end. Even without it being enacted, the lawsuit states, the directive has already resulted in “immediate, concrete injury to Plaintiffs by unsettling and destabilizing plaintiffs’ reasonable expectation of continued service.”
“It’s important for the country as a whole because what the president is seeking to do weakens the military,” Levi said. “This is a time when everyone who is capable of serving and wants to serve needs to be able to do so.”
The five plaintiffs serve in the Air Force, the Coast Guard and the Army, and their years of service range from three years to two decades. Some have served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and one is nearing retirement.
“Last year, the Department of Defense announced that transgender people could serve openly,” one plaintiff said in a GLAD press statement. “I was very relieved and came out as transgender to my commanding officers, who were supportive.
“My experience has been positive and I am prouder than ever to continue to serve. I am married and have three children, and the military has been my life. But now, I’m worried about my family’s future.”
Levi said there was no basis for excluding transgender service members and that the motivation for the president’s recent announcement was discrimination pure and simple.
“I think it’s important to keep in mind the context of this decision and how unprecedented it is,” Levi said.
While there have been groups who have been excluded from military service or limited in their service, such as people of color, women and Japanese Americans during World War II, Levi said it was unprecedented for a group to be told they could serve, only to later face expulsion.
“It’s really quite extraordinary what this president is seeking to do,” she said.
The lawsuit names six defendants — Trump, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Dunford, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke.
The reinstatement of the prohibition has been a topic of discussion amongst those in UniTy of the Pioneer Valley, a transgender support group in Springfield, according to its executive director, Keri Stebbins. As a transgender woman and a military veteran herself, Stebbins said those in the group who belong to the military are upset by the news.
“Where do they go? What happens to them? They already came out because they said it was OK,” Stebbins said. “The thing is so wrong. It’s unimaginable.”
Stebbins said the group is waiting to see what exactly Trump does as well as what the state group needs from them.
“We undermine the military by doing this,” Stebbins said of the ban. “There has already been a study. It hasn’t been a problem.”
Emily Cutts can be reached at ecutts@gazettenet.com.
Link for Assessing the Impact study:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html
Palm center report:
http://www.palmcenter.org/publication/discharging-transgender-troops-cost-960-million/