The Trump administration can begin with the enforcement of the ban on the transgender service members through a shared top court

Cnn
–

The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that the Trump government can begin enforcing a ban on members of the Transgender Service in the military.

The decision is a great victory for President Donald Trump to enable the High Court to unlock various parts of its second -term agenda, which were stopped by preliminary dishes that check numerous legal challenges for his guidelines.

As is often the case with emergency decisions, the court did not explain its reasoning. The three liberal judges publicly reflected on the decision, but also did not explain their position.

During the first term of office of the President, the High Court Trump allowed a similar but somewhat more permissible ban to enforce the trans service members. This ban was later reversed by President Joe Biden.

According to the new ban, “service members with a current diagnosis or prehistory of symptoms that have gender dysphoria in harmony or have symptoms are processed for separation from military service,” said a memo in which politics is presented.

The Pentagon does not allow transgender -Americans to join a branch of the military.

It is unclear how many transgender people serve in the military. In 2018, an independent research institute estimated 14,000 transgender troops.

A high-ranking defense officer previously informed CNN that there are 4,240 service members in Active Duty, Reserve and the National Guard with a diagnosis of a gender dysphoria that is defined as a psychological need that a individual feels when their gender identity distinguishes from their gender assigned at birth. But not every transgender individual has gender dysphoria.

Days after taking office in January, Trump signed an executive regulation in which the Pentagon was cited to implement his own guidelines, which states that the members of the Transgender Service are incompatible with military service. The government had argued that the continued permissible people who serve in the United States would have a negative impact on the lethality, willingness and cohesion of the military.

However, the federal judges who checked the legal challenges for politics came to the conclusion that they violated the constitutional rights of the transgender Americans.

In this case, the US district judge Benjamin, Benjamin, stood up in a courthouse at a courthouse in the state of Washington that the government did not implement the members of transgender service members for at least four years (guidelines from previous administrations) (guidelines from previous administrations) without any recognizable damage to military preparation, Cohare, order, order or discussion or discussion. “”. “”

“It does not provide any evidence that the plaintiff shows that the open transgender service has actually improved each of these interests,” the judge wrote and referred to politics that bids used during his term.

However, the government argued that Settle had crossed by wadding into military politics. It asked the judges to put his decision on the waiting loop for the time being after a Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to do exactly that.

“The district court's injunction cannot be due to the essential respect for the professional military judgments of the department,” wrote General Prosecutor D. John Sauer in court files.

Without a complaint by the Supreme Court, the military will be “forced to maintain a policy that has determined in his professional judgment in order to contradict the military willingness and interests of the nation”.

But lawyers for the challengers in the case, US v. Shilling, asked the High Court to stay out of the matter for the time being. They warned that a decision in favor of the administration would lead to the immediate dismissal of thousands of service members “so that the respected career and hiding holes in military units end”.

“The loss of well-qualified services such as (the challengers of the prohibition) will necessarily negatively negatively negatively negative to the military willingness, the lethality and cohesion of the units to have a strong and effective national defense,” she told the High Court.

The LGBTQ rights groups Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, whose lawyers were behind the legal view, said that the decision of the Supreme Court was “a devastating blow for members of the transgender service who have proven their skills and commitment to defend our nation.”

“By getting into force that this discriminatory ban comes into force while our contestation continues, the court has temporarily approved a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and all prejudices,” said the groups in an explanation. “We remain steadfast in our conviction that this ban violates constitutional guarantees for the same protection and ultimately depressed.”

In another major contestation of the guideline, the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals checks whether an injunction that has been issued by the US district judge Ana Reyes for the time being.

The Court of Appeal had made this decision on a short -term hold while taking into account the case.

Nic Talbott, a transgender lieutenant in the army and the senior plaintiff in the DC case, expressed disappointment on the decision of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

“This is another setback, albeit a big one, but we will continue to fight. I intend to remain resilient and continue to perform my tasks until I can no longer do this,” he told CNN.

This story has been updated with additional developments and information.

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the definition of gender dysphoria. It is defined as the psychological stress that an individual feels when your gender identity differs from your gender assigned at birth.

MJ Lee and John Fritzse of CNN contributed to this report.