Karnoski v. Trump

Last updated

Karnoski, et al v. Trump, et al
Washington-western.png
Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
DecidedPending (filed August 29, 2017)
Defendant Donald Trump
In capacity as President of the United States
James Mattis (now removed)
In capacity as Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper (replacing Mattis)
In capacity as Secretary of Defense
Kirstjen Nielsen (now removed)
In capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security
Kevin McAleenan (replacing Nielsen, now removed)
in capacity as acting Secretary of Homeland Security
Chad Wolf (replacing McAleenan)
in capacity as acting Secretary of Homeland Security
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Homeland Security
Plaintiff(s)Ryan Karnoski
Cathrine Schmid
Laura Garza (on behalf of D.L., a minor)
Lindsey Muller
Terece Lewis
Phillip Stephens
Megan Winters
Jane Doe
Conner Callahan
Human Rights Campaign
Gender Justice League
American Military Partner Association
Citation(s)2:17-cv-01297-MJP
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Marsha J. Pechman

Karnoski v. Trump (2:17-cv-01297-MJP) was a lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit, like the similar suits Jane Doe v. Trump , Stone v. Trump , and Stockman v. Trump , sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of three transgender plaintiffs, the Human Rights Campaign, and the Gender Justice League by Lambda Legal and OutServe-SLDN. [1] [2]

Contents

In addition to President Trump, the amended suit named as defendants the Secretary of Defense (originally James Mattis, later Mark Esper), Secretary of Homeland Security (originally Kirstjen Nielsen, then Kevin McAleenan, then Chad Wolf) the United States Department of Defense and the United States Secretary of Homeland Security. [2]

Background

Trump first announced a policy banning transgender people from serving in the military in "any capacity" in a series of tweets on July 26, 2017, stating that allowing such service members would incur "tremendous medical costs and disruption". [3] The decision reversed Obama administration policy to allow the enlistment of transgender personnel, which was initially approved by the Department of Defense to begin July 1, but was delayed by Defense Secretary Mattis. [4] [5] Trump issued formal guidance on the ban to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security in a memorandum on August 25, 2017. [6]

History

The complaint sought an immediate injunction based on the First and Fifth Amendments, and described the ban on transgender service as "[d]ripping with animus" and "unsupported by any compelling, important, or even rational justification". Under the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause protects against unequal treatment by the federal government and protects against the deprivation "of life, liberty, and property"; and under the First Amendment, the ban on transgender service was stated to violate the plaintiffs' rights to free expression and association. [2] The suit was amended on September 14, 2017 to add six more transgender personnel and the American Military Partner Association to the list of plaintiffs. [7]

The State of Washington filed a motion to intervene in the case "to protect its quasi-sovereign, proprietary, and sovereign interests from a policy that unconstitutionally targets transgender Washingtonians" on September 25, 2017. [8] : 1  The Court granted the motion to intervene in an Order issued November 27, 2017. [9]

Defendant motions to dismiss and stay

The United States Department of Justice Civil Division (USDOJ) filed a motion to dismiss on October 16, 2017, repeating arguments made in similar motions to dismiss for the related suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Stockman v. Trump. In the motion to dismiss, USDOJ called the challenge "premature several times over", asserting the Presidential Memorandum of August 25 merely ordered further studies and no policy changes would be implemented before March 18. In addition, USDOJ argued Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance of September 14 prevented the involuntary discharge of any Service member on the basis of transgender status, and would continue to be provide medical treatment to Service members who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria. [10] : 4  Several days after the preliminary injunction was granted in Doe v. Trump, the Plaintiffs filed an opposing motion replying to the motion to dismiss, stating "The government's defense is most notable for what it lacks: factual support to justify the Ban. Instead, Defendants assert that courts must defer to the military in military affairs. But it is difficult to imagine a situation where the extraordinary deference sought by the government would be less appropriate than here, where the President has discarded the military's own considered judgment without any factual support for doing so." [11] : 11  USDOJ filed a response in support of dismissal on November 9, again asserting that since the issue was still being studied, "it remains uncertain whether Plaintiffs will suffer a cognizable injury caused by the military's future policy." [12] : 3 

On November 7, USDOJ filed a motion requesting a stay of proceedings, arguing "this Court should stay further proceedings in this case while the preliminary injunction in Doe remains in place", [13] : 2  referring to the October 30 Order by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in Jane Doe v. Trump providing a preliminary injunction to the implementation of the Presidential Memorandum. Both the State of Washington and the Plaintiffs filed motions opposing the stay on November 9. [14] [15] The motion to stay was denied on November 11. [16]

Preliminary injunction

Not only did the DoD previously conclude that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly would not impact military effectiveness and readiness, the working group tasked to evaluate the issue also concluded that prohibiting open service would have negative impacts including loss of qualified personnel, erosion of unit cohesion, and erosion of trust in command.

...

The Court concludes that the policy set forth in the Presidential Memorandum constitutes [a governmental intrusion upon a fundamental liberty interest]. The policy directly interferes with Plaintiffs' ability to define and express their gender identity, and penalizes Plaintiffs for exercising their fundamental right to do so openly by depriving them of employment and career opportunities.

...

The policy penalizes transgender service members—but not others—for disclosing their gender identity, and is therefore a content-based restriction. Even giving the government the benefit of a more deferential standard of review under Brown, 444 U.S. at 355, [17] the policy does not survive.

— Judge Marsha J. Pechman, Order, Case 17-cv-01297-MJP (December 11, 2017) [18] : 16, 19–20 

On December 11, 2017, Judge Marsha J. Pechman issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, [19] stating the "Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the policy prohibiting transgender individuals from serving openly is substantially related to important government interests" and "the prohibition on military service by transgender individuals was announced by President Trump on Twitter, abruptly and without any evidence of considered reason or deliberation. (See Dkt. No. 30 at ¶¶ 172-184.) [7] : 26–28  The policy is therefore not entitled to Rostker deference," referring to Rostker v. Goldberg ,453U.S.57(1981). The Order granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss as the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint had not properly plead the procedural due process claim, but the Order also denied the other claims in the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for preliminary injunction in full. [18] : 18–20, 22–23 

Appeals

On December 14, 2017, USDOJ filed a notice declaring its intent to appeal the preliminary injunction. [20] A Motion for Clarification and partial stay was filed the next day asking the same questions as the motion for emergency stay with the 9th Circuit. [21] Both the plaintiffs and State of Washington filed opposition briefs to the Motion for Clarification on December 27, 2017. [22] [23] Judge Pechman rejected the appeal on December 29, writing that "Secretary Mattis does not have authority to effectuate an unconstitutional policy, and certainly not one which has been enjoined" and "Defendants have provided no evidence that the accessions criteria for transgender enlistees are any more complex or burdensome than the criteria for non-transgender enlistees." [24] : 4–5 

Meanwhile, USDOJ also filed a motion for an emergency stay with the 9th Circuit on December 15, 2017. [25] In the motion, USDOJ made similar arguments as those filed earlier in December before the 4th Circuit (in Stone v. Trump) and D.C. Circuit (in Jane Doe v. Trump), namely either that Secretary Mattis could exercise his independent authority to implement a further delay on accession of transgender candidates, or that the injunction could be narrowly restricted to allow the accession only of the Plaintiffs found to have standing. [25] : 2–3  The Plaintiffs and the State of Washington filed opposing motions on December 19, 2017, stating "the constitutional defects in the accession ban cannot be cured by merely having another government official re-authorize its extension, even if acting on a supposedly independent basis" [26] : 2  and noting that "[t]hough the first ruling was over six weeks ago, Defendants waited until late last week to seek an emergency stay. In the meantime, Defendants issued detailed guidance to the military on how to comply with the court rulings, guidance that will come as no surprise given that the military has been preparing to allow accession of transgender individuals for 18 months." [27] : 1  In the reply to support the motion to dismiss filed on December 20, USDOJ argued that "Plaintiffs cannot plausibly characterize as irrational the current accession policy—a rule that, until 2016, was upheld by military leadership under every president for decades. The mere fact that this policy was revised by former-Secretary Carter cannot foreclose Secretary Mattis and President Trump from reconsidering its validity." [28] : 19  The day after Judge Pechman rejected the motion for clarification, USDOJ applied to withdraw their appeal with the 9th Circuit, [29] which was granted. [30]

Summary judgment

On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that "this Court concluded that the Ban was unsupported by any adequate justification; indeed, it also found that the proffered justifications were contradicted by the extant evidence, including the military's own comprehensive review. Defendants cannot rectify this deficiency with post hoc factual support that could not have actually motivated President Trump's decision because it did not exist when the decision was made. Instead, the Ban must be measured against the state of affairs that existed on July 26, 2017—and this Court has already confirmed that the Ban fails any level of constitutional scrutiny when examined against that record." [31] : 1  The State of Washington also filed a motion for summary judgment, noting "Defendants have simply presented no evidence whatsoever that military readiness and unit cohesion are actually put at risk by open service by transgender service members" and "the challenged policy undermines the important governmental interest purportedly served by the discriminatory policy." [32] : 9–10 

In their reply, USDOJ challenged the motion for summary judgment as the discovery process for the declarants in support of the motion were scheduled for mid-to-late March, saying the "lack of a fair opportunity to test these asserted facts [the "Statement of Undisputed Fact" in the original motion] will necessarily hinter Defendants' efforts to oppose Plaintiffs' and intervenor's summary judgment motions." [33] : 3–5  The Plaintiffs noted that USDOJ had "significant advance notice" prior to the filing of the motion for summary judgment, but "Defendants took no steps to obtain any discovery whatsoever in the two months before their opposition deadline." [34] : 3  The State of Washington, as the Intervenor, wrote "the Rule 56(d) request appears to be a strategy to buy time until defendants can finalize and produce the new "study" that they hope will provide the missing support for the Ban." [35] : 5  On February 21, Judge Pechman denied the USDOJ motion to continue the motion for summary judgment, and ordered USDOJ to file any opposition to the motion for summary judgment within seven days. [36]

The next day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel initial disclosures from the Defendants, asking the Court to force the Defendants to identify the individuals, documents, and information that would be used to support their defense. [37] On July 27, the court granted the motion to compel, and denied the defendants' motion for a protective order. [38]

New Trump memorandum

Meanwhile, Donald Trump issued a new Presidential Memorandum on March 23, 2018. On March 29, the defendants moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction, contending that any deficiencies in the original 2017 memorandum were now moot, and that the new policy was constitutional. [39] The motion argued: "Far from a categorical ban based on transgender status, this new policy, like the Carter policy before it, would turn on the medical condition of gender dysphoria and contains a nuanced set of exceptions allowing some transgender individuals, including many Plaintiffs here, to serve." [39] : 1  The court denied the motion on April 13, 2018, [40] holding that "Each of the claims ... remains viable," and that "because transgender people have long been subjected to systemic oppression and forced to live in silence, they are a protected class. ... This means that before Defendants can implement the Ban, they must show that it was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype, and that it is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests." [41] : 2–3 

Further appeals

On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, [42] along with a motion to stay the injunction and allow the ban to go into effect while their appeal was pending. [43] A few days later on May 4, the defendants also asked the 9th Circuit for a stay pending appeal. [44] Judge Pechman denied the stay on June 15, [45] and the 9th Circuit denied the stay on July 19. [46] The appellate court heard oral argument on October 10, 2018. [47]

On November 7, the defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the Court to accept the case for review immediately, without waiting for the 9th Circuit to decide their appeal. [48] The Supreme Court denied the petition on January 22, 2019, [49] but issued a 5-4 order, split along ideological lines, that lifted the stay on the order while Karnoski and the related cases were still being deliberated. [50]

On June 14, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court issued a decision unanimously holding that the administration's ban targeted transgender people. [51] Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit vacated the district court's ruling, holding that the differences between the 2017 and 2018 memoranda were sufficiently "significant" that the lower court was required to consider the 2018 memorandum separately. [52]

The case was still pending in district court as of January 25, 2021, when President Joe Biden issued an executive order revoking Trump's transgender ban. [53]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Hedges v. Obama</i> American legal case

Hedges v. Obama was a lawsuit filed in January 2012 against the Obama administration and members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA). The legislation permitted the U.S. government to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States". The plaintiffs contended that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on "suspicion of providing substantial support" to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban respectively that the NDAA arms the U.S. military with the ability to imprison indefinitely journalists, activists and human-rights workers based on vague allegations.

<i>De Leon v. Perry</i>

De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing, which was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing on October 6, 2014, after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals in other marriage equality cases, and the motion was granted on October 7, 2014, setting a hearing for November 2014. However, on October 27, 2014, the Fifth Circuit set oral arguments for January 9, 2015.

<i>Wolf v. Walker</i>

Wolf v. Walker is a federal lawsuit filed in February 2014 that challenged Wisconsin's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages established in other jurisdictions, and related statutes. In June 2014, Judge Barbara Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled for the plaintiffs. And in the week before she stayed her decision county clerks in 60 of the state's 72 counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and some performed marriage ceremonies for them. The state appealed her decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed her opinion in a unanimous decision on September 4. The state requested a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6. Same-sex marriages resumed after the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate the next day.

<i>Burns v. Hickenlooper</i>

Burns v. Hickenlooper is a lawsuit filed on July 1, 2014, in federal district court in Colorado, challenging that state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendants have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying plaintiffs the fundamental right of marriage. The defendants agreed with the substance of the plaintiffs' case, but asked the district court to stay implementation of any order requiring Colorado to alter enforcement of its ban pending the outcome of other litigation. After the district court declined to grant more than a one-month stay on July 23, the state's governor and attorney general appealed and won a stay from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 21. Following U.S. Supreme Court action in other cases, on October 8 they asked the Tenth Circuit to dismiss their appeal and lift the stay, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in Colorado.

In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–Bostic, Bishop, and Kitchen–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities. Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage had already been established by statute, court ruling, or voter initiative in thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, issued by U.S. president Donald Trump.

<i>Blumenthal v. Trump</i> Lawsuit between members of Congress and Donald Trump concerning emoluments

Blumenthal v. Trump, 949 F.3d 14, was a U.S. constitutional law and federal civil procedure lawsuit heard by Circuit Judges Henderson, Tatel, and Griffith, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case was on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted in part and denied in part the President's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, denied the President's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim, and certified interlocutory appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender personnel in the United States military</span>

The United States Armed Forces have a long history of transgender service personnel, dating back to at least the Civil War. Initially, most such service members were women, who disguised themselves as men in order to serve in combat roles. Many reverted to their female identities upon leaving their service, but others maintained their male identities. In more recent years, openly transgender people have served or sought to serve in the military. The subject began to engender some political controversy starting with transgender servicemembers being banned in 1960 and possibly earlier. This controversy came to a head in the 2010s and was subjected to relatively rapid changes for the next few years. As of 2021, transgender individuals are expressly permitted to serve openly as their identified gender. A brief timeline is as follows:

<i>Stone v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017

Stone v. Trump (1:17-cv-02459-MJG) was a lawsuit filed on August 28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleged that President Donald Trump's ban on transgender personnel joining the U.S. military violated their equal protection and due process rights. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland filed the suit on behalf of Petty Officer First Class Brock Stone, an 11-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, and several other transgender service members. In addition to President Trump, the suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals (2017)</span>

The Presidential Memorandum on Military Service by Transgender Individuals, officially the Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, is the 27th presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017. The intent was to prevent transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, on the basis that they would be a financial burden due to sex reassignment procedures and associated costs. Federal courts delayed the implementation of this rule by issuing four injunctions. On January 22, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration's ban to take effect.

<i>Doe v. Trump</i> (2017) Lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019

Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017, and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019.

<i>Stockman v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017

Stockman v. Trump (5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KKx) is an old lawsuit filed on September 5, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, like the similar prior suits Jane Doe v. Trump, Stone v. Trump, and Karnoski v. Trump, sought to block Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The suit was filed on the behalf of four named and three anonymous transgender plaintiffs by Equality California (EQCA). Two other major LGBT-rights organizations which had filed Jane Doe v. Trump, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, joined the suit as co-counsels in October 2017.

<i>English v. Trump</i>

Leandra English v. Donald Trump, et al., No. 1:17-cv-02534, was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Leandra English, alleged that the defendants, Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney, violated 12 U.S.C. § 5491(b)(5)(B), a component of the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010, when President Trump appointed Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

The Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security Regarding Military Service by Transgender Individuals is the 43rd presidential memorandum signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on March 23, 2018.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Doe et al. v. Trump Corporation et al. is an ongoing case commenced in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York in October 2018, in which four anonymous plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump and three of his adult children — Donald Jr., Eric, and Ivanka — alleging racketeering and of fraudulently encouraging unsophisticated investors to give large amounts of money to organizations connected to the Trumps. It is alleged that the defendants promoted the multi-level marketing company ACN Inc. in exchange for millions of dollars in secret payments from 2005 to 2015. The lawsuit says that Trump "told investors that he had 'experienced the opportunity' and 'done a lot of research,' and that his endorsement was 'not for any money.'" However, it subsequently emerged that Trump was a paid spokesman for at least one of the companies whose products and services he was promoting to investors.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous civil lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

References

  1. ↑ Larson, Erik (August 28, 2017). "ACLU sues Trump over 'political' ban on transgender soldiers". San Francisco Chronicle. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on November 7, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297". Lambda Legal Legacy. Lambda Legal. August 28, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  3. ↑ Note, Recent Social Media Posts: In Tweets, President Purports to Ban Transgender Servicemembers , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 934 (2018).
  4. ↑ "Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' in US military". BBC News. July 26, 2017. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
  5. ↑ Mabeus, Courtney; Hafner, Katherine; Sidersky, Robyn (July 26, 2017). "Trump's transgender military ban sparks outrage, applause from Hampton Roads". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on July 27, 2017. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
  6. ↑ "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security". whitehouse.gov . August 25, 2017. Retrieved August 28, 2017– via National Archives.
  7. 1 2 "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP". Lambda Legal. September 14, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  8. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of Washington's Motion to Intervene, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. September 25, 2017. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
  9. ↑ Pechman, Marsha J. (November 27, 2017). "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Granting Motion to Intervene, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  10. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 16, 2017. Retrieved November 6, 2017.
  11. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 1, 2017. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  12. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 9, 2017. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  13. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for a Stay of Proceedings, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 7, 2017. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  14. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Stay Request, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 9, 2017. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of Washington's Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority and Request for a Stay of Proceedings, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 9, 2017. Retrieved November 30, 2017.
  16. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Notice of Supplemental Authority in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing Regarding Doe v. Trump, No. 17-cv-01597-CKK (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 2017), Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 14, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  17. ↑ Brown v. Glines,444U.S.348(1980).
  18. 1 2 "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss & Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 11, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  19. ↑ Correll, Diana Stancy (December 11, 2017). "Third federal district court orders Trump administration to allow transgenders to serve in US military". Washington Examiner. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  20. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Notice of Appeal, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017.
  21. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Motion for Clarification and, if necessary, a Partial Stay of Prliminary [sic] Injunction Pending Appeal, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 15, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  22. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Clarification and Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 27, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  23. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of Washington's Response to Defendants' Motion for Clarification or Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 27, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  24. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Denying Motion for Clarification and Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 29, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  25. 1 2 "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 for Administrative Stay and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). 9th Cir. December 15, 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
  26. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs-Appellees' Opposition to Defendants-Appellants' Emergency Motion Under Circuit Rule 27-3 for Administrative Stay and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). 9th Cir. December 19, 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
  27. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of Washington Response to Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). 9th Cir. December 19, 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
  28. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Appellants' Reply In Support of their Motion for Administrative Stay and Partial Stay Pending Appeal, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). 9th Cir. December 20, 2017. Retrieved January 2, 2018.
  29. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Notice of voluntary dismissal of appeal, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 29, 2017. Retrieved February 23, 2018.
  30. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order, Case No. 17-36009" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 30, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  31. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. January 25, 2018. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  32. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Washington's Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. January 25, 2018. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  33. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendant's Rule 56(d) Response to Plaintiff's and Intervenor's Motions for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 16, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  34. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Rule 56(d) Response to Plaintiff's and Intervenor's Motions for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 12, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  35. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Reply in Support of Washington's Motion for Summary Judgment, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 12, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  36. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Denying Defendants' Rule 56(d) Motion, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 21, 2018. Retrieved March 7, 2018.
  37. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendants' Initial Disclosures, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 22, 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
  38. ↑ "Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Granting Motion to Compel; Denying Motion for Protective Order, Case No. 2:17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). July 27, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  39. 1 2 "Ryan Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). March 29, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  40. ↑ Ford, William (April 17, 2018). "Document: District Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction on Transgender Military Ban". Lawfare . Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  41. ↑ Karnoski v. Trump(W.D. Wash.2018), Text .
  42. ↑ "Ryan Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Notice of Appeal – Preliminary Injunction Appeal, Civil Action No. 17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). April 30, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  43. ↑ "Ryan Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Civil Action No. 17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). April 30, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  44. ↑ "Karnoski v. Trump, No. 18-35347; Motion for Stay Pending Appeal" (PDF). ca9.uscourts.gov. May 4, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  45. ↑ "Ryan Karnoski, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order Denying Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 17-cv-1297-MJP" (PDF). June 15, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  46. ↑ "Karnoski v. Trump, No. 18-35347; Order" (PDF). ca9.uscourts.gov. July 18, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  47. ↑ "18-35347, Karnoski v. Trump". ca9.uscourts.gov. October 10, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  48. ↑ "Trump v. Karnoski; Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment" (PDF). supremecourt.gov . November 7, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  49. ↑ "Trump v. Karnoski". SCOTUSblog . January 22, 2019. Retrieved February 18, 2023.
  50. ↑ Barnes, Robert; Lamothe, Dan (January 22, 2019). "Supreme Court allows Trump restrictions on transgender troops in military to go into effect as legal battle continues". The Washington Post . Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  51. ↑ "Karnoski v. Trump". Lambda Legal . Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. June 14, 2019. Retrieved February 18, 2023.
  52. ↑ Pazanowski, Bernie; Mulvaney, Erin (June 14, 2019). "Trump Ban on Transgender Soldiers Returns to District Court". Bloomberg Law . Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved February 18, 2023.
  53. ↑ Garamone, Jim (January 25, 2021). "Biden Administration Overturns Transgender Exclusion Policy". U.S. Department of Defense . Retrieved February 18, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.