Stockman v. Trump

Last updated

Stockman, et al v. Trump, et al
California-central.png
Court United States District Court for the Central District of California
DecidedPending (filed September 5, 2017)
Defendant Donald Trump
James Mattis
Joseph Dunford
Richard Spencer
Ryan McCarthy
Heather Wilson
Elaine Duke
Plaintiff(s)Aiden Stockman
Nicolas Talbott
Tamasyn Reeves
Jaquice Tate
John Doe 1
John Doe 2
Jane Doe
Equality California
Citation(s)5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KKx
(filed as 2:17-cv-06516)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Jesus Bernal
Kenly Kiya Kato

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). [1] [2] 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. [3]

Contents

In addition to President Trump, the amended suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense (James Mattis), the Army (Ryan McCarthy, acting), the Navy (Richard Spencer), the Air Force (Heather Wilson), and Homeland Security (Elaine Duke). [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". [4] 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. [5] [6] Trump issued formal guidance on the ban to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security in a memorandum on August 25, 2017. [7]

History

The complaint seeks an immediate injunction based on the Fifth Amendment, and in it, EQCA noted "the stated bases offered in support of Defendants' August 25 Directive are pretextual, arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by facts, evidence, or analysis" and that "transgender people have been serving openly [since 2016] without incident or any negative impact upon military readiness, lethality, unit cohesion, or the national defense generally." [2] On October 2, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. [8]

The United States Department of Justice Civil Division (USDOJ) filed a motion to dismiss on October 23, using the same arguments as previously filed in Jane Doe v. Trump and Stone v. Trump, which called the challenge "premature several times over" because "Plaintiffs are suffering no injury during the interim period" while Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance of September 2017 was in effect during the six-month study period before submitting a recommendation for a final policy. The government also argued that Plaintiffs "may never be injured by the policy finally adopted". [9]

NCLR and GLAD filed a response to the government's motion to dismiss on November 6, ahead of a November 20 hearing. In the response, the lawyers for the plaintiffs called the Interim Guidance a "red herring" and argued "the absence of any rational basis for the ban, its facial targeting of a disfavored group, and the highly unusual circumstances under which it was adopted lead to the inescapable inference that it is based on animus—discrimination for its own sake—and not on any legitimate military concerns." [10] USDOJ replied to support dismissal on November 13, stating "[t]he [Presidential] Memorandum [of August 25] itself shows that Secretary Mattis has not been limited to studying only when and how transgender service members should be discharged and that the outcome of the study has not been predetermined" and "[t]he Doe Court's reliance on statements that the President made on Twitter several weeks before issuing his Memorandum is misplaced." USDOJ also argued "policymakers cannot bind their successors to a decision simply by conducting a study, and the rules of deference due the military are not tossed aside merely because current military officials are revisiting an issue that was studied by previous officials." [11] : 6–7, 13 

Four organizations filed amici briefs in late October and early November in support of the Plaintiffs: The Trevor Project; [12] fourteen states and the District of Columbia; [13] Transgender American Veterans Association, National Center for Transgender Equality, and other transgender interest organizations; [14] and various health care organizations. [15]

After Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Presidential Memorandum of August 25 from being enforced in the related case Jane Doe v. Trump on October 30, 2017, the Court in Stockman v. Trump issued an Order for Supplemental Briefing on November 1, which asked if Jane Doe affects the case at hand and whether the Court should stay Stockman as Jane Doe continues to proceed. The parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs no later than November 8. [16] USDOJ supported the stay, [17] while Plaintiffs opposed the stay. [18] The hearing for the proposed stay was held on December 11, 2017.

Intervention by California

The State of California moved to intervene in the case on November 8, stating that "[i]f left unchallenged, the transgender military ban would impede the California National Guard's ability to recruit and retain members to protect the State's natural resources in times of need; force California to violate its anti-discrimination laws and discriminate against its own residents in staffing the California National Guard; and threaten the State's ability to safeguard its public institutions of higher education from discrimination in their ROTC programs." [19] : 2  The motion to intervene also noted that President Trump's July 26 announcement via Twitter "was rendered without any significant analysis and lacks a rational basis." [20] : 7  California also filed a motion to shorten time on November 8 in order to participate in the scheduled November 20 hearing. [21] The Court granted the motion to shorten time on November 9, and stated that any opposing motions must be filed by November 14, and any supporting motions must be filed by November 16. [22]

In their opposition to the motion to intervene filed on November 14, USDOJ argued "the military's longstanding policy restricting the accession of transgender persons has been in place for decades without challenge from California," questioning why California would choose to intervene now, especially two months after the lawsuit was originally filed. [23] : 4, 15  In its response on November 16, the State of California countered by noting "the military's historical discrimination against transgender individuals does not alter the fact that the current practice conflicts with California's antidiscrimination laws, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex" and "the Department of Defense's determination [published in the 2016 RAND report] that sound and competent evidence did not justify the ban, the military's historical discrimination does not negate California's interest in challenging the current, patently discriminatory policy". [24] : 4–5  On November 16, California's motion to intervene was granted and the scheduled November 20 hearing was continued to December 11. [25]

Preliminary injunction

Plaintiffs are "protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause[, which] contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws." [ United States v. Windsor ,570U.S.___(2013).] Consequently, the government must proffer a justification which is "exceedingly persuasive," "genuine," "not hypothesized," not "invented post hoc in response to litigation," and "must not rely on overbroad generalizations." [ United States v. Virginia ,518U.S.515, 531(1996).] Defendants' justifications do not pass muster. Their reliance on cost is unavailing, as precedent shows the ease of cost and administration not survive intermediate scrutiny even if it is significant. [ Frontiero v. Richardson ,411U.S.677, 688–91(1996).] Moreover, all the evidence in the record suggests the ban's cost savings to the government is minuscule. (RAND Report at 22–23.) [26] Furthermore, Defendants' unsupported allegation that allowing transgender individuals to be in the military would adversely affect unit cohesion is similarly unsupported by the proffered evidence. (Compare MTD at 30–31 [9] with RAND Report at 24.) [26] These justifications fall far short of exceedingly persuasive.

— Judge Jesus Bernal, Order (December 22, 2017), Case 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK, Dkt. No. 79 [27] : 19 

On December 22, 2017, Judge Jesus Bernal was the fourth judge to grant a preliminary injunction against the policies of the Presidential Memorandum. [27] [28]

New Trump memorandum

On March 23, 2018, President Trump issued a new memorandum which revoked the prior memorandum of August 25, 2017, and allowed the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to "exercise their authority to implement any appropriate policies concerning military service by transgender individuals." [29] The USDOJ immediately filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing the case was moot since President Trump had shifted responsibility for the proposed ban in the March 2018 memorandum: "If Plaintiffs fear future injury from the proposed new policy, which they have not challenged, those harms would stem from the independent action of the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security in implementing that policy, not the 2017 or 2018 Memoranda." [30] : 7–8  In addition, USDOJ argued "The new policy, by contrast, contains several exceptions allowing some transgender individuals, including many Plaintiffs here, to serve, and it is the product of independent military judgment following an extensive study", [30] : 8  citing the panel of authors responsible for the Department of Defense report attached to the Mattis memorandum, which had met 13 times in 90 days. [31] : 18  USDOJ also argued the new policy was constitutional because it should be subject to highly deferential review rather than a stricter rational basis review. [30] : 10–14  The new policy would disqualify "individuals with gender dysphoria who require or have undergone gender transition" and require that "service members generally serve in their biological sex" on the basis of unit cohesion, military readiness, cost, and fairness. [30] : 15 

Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, noting the Defendants had violated Local Rule 7-3, which requires each side to meet and confer with the other side at least seven days before filing any motion. [32] The two sides agreed to a schedule allowing responses to the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction starting in late April. [33] After briefing and oral argument, the court denied the motion on September 18, 2018, holding that "the new policy is essentially the same as the first policy ... Trump specifically announced that he was banning transgender people from the military. This second iteration of the policy continues to do exactly that." [34] : 10 

See also

Related Research Articles

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 case 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.

<i>CREW v. Trump</i> Lawsuit against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

<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 lawfulness and constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

<i>CREW and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP</i>

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and National Security Archive v. Trump and EOP, No. 1:17-cv-01228, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the archivist National Security Archive, allege that the defendants, President Donald Trump and elements of the Executive Office of the President, are in violation of the Presidential Records Act by deleting electronic messages on Twitter and using other electronic messaging applications without required archival records.

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Trump and Pence</i> Litigation

American Civil Liberties Union v. Trump and Pence, No. 1:17-cv-01351, is a case pending before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs, the watchdog group American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleges that the defendants, President Donald Trump and the Vice President Michael Pence, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act by establishing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity for the purpose of supporting the President’s "claim that he won the popular vote in the 2016 election—once millions of supposedly illegal votes are subtracted from the count."

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

The United States Military has 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>Karnoski v. Trump</i> Lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017

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.

<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.

Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross is a United States District Court case in the District of Columbia in which the court determined whether or not a President may establish a marine national monument, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The case represents the first time that the President's authority to create an offshore marine monument under the Act was directly challenged in court. While the District Court upheld the President's authority to designate the monument under the authority bestowed by the Antiquities Act, the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit and awaits further judicial review.

In United States law, a national injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, national injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.

Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

  1. ↑ "Equality California Files Suit Against Trump Administration to Block Transgender Military Ban | Equality California". Eqca.org. September 5, 2017. Retrieved September 6, 2017.
  2. 1 2 3 "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Civil Action No. 17-CV-6516" (PDF). Equality California. September 5, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  3. ↑ "GLAD and NCLR join as co-counsel in Equality California lawsuit against President Trump's transgender military ban; ask court for emergency relief to immediately stop harm" (Press release). Equality California. October 2, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  4. ↑ Note, Recent Social Media Posts: In Tweets, President Purports to Ban Transgender Servicemembers , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 934 (2018).
  5. ↑ "Trump: Transgender people 'can't serve' in US military". BBC News. July 26, 2017. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
  6. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ "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.
  8. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 1, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  9. 1 2 "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). National Center for Lesbian Rights. October 23, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  10. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Further Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). National Center for Lesbian Rights. November 6, 2017. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  11. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 13, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  12. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Amicus Brief of the Trevor Project, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 25, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  13. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Brief of Amici States Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 6, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  14. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 6, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Brief of Amici Curiae Medical, Nursing, Mental Health, and Other Health Care Organizations in Support of Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 8, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  16. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order for Supplemental Briefing, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 1, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  17. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Response to the Court's November 1, 2017 Order, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 1, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  18. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; 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 1, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  19. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of California's Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff; Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 8, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  20. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; [Proposed] Complaint-in-Intervention for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 8, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  21. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; State of California's Notice of Motion and Motion to Shorten Time; [Proposed] Order, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 8, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  22. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order re State of California's Motion to Shorten Time, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 9, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  23. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Opposition to State of California's Motion to Intervene, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 14, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  24. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Reply in Support of State of California's Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 16, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  25. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order (1) GRANTING State of California's Motion to Intervene as Party Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 52); (2) ORDERING Supplemental Briefing; and (3) CONTINUING the Hearing on Pending Matters to December 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-1799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 16, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  26. 1 2 Schaefer, Agnes Gereben; Iyengar, Radha; Kadiyala, Srikanth; Kavanaugh, Jennifer; Engel, Charles C.; Williams, Kayla M.; Kress, Amii (2016). Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation. ISBN   978-0-8330-9436-0 . Retrieved July 27, 2017.
  27. 1 2 "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Order (1) DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 36) and (2) GRANTING Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 15), Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 22, 2017. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  28. ↑ Savage, David G. (December 26, 2017). "Military poised to accept transgender troops, despite Trump tweets, as courts block ban". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 27, 2017.
  29. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Declaration of Ryan B. Parker [Trump memorandum], Case No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  30. 1 2 3 4 "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  31. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Declaration of Ryan B. Parker [Mattis memorandum and DoD report], Case No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  32. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, Case No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 27, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  33. ↑ "Stockman, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Stipulation for Entry of a Briefing Schedule and Continuance of Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, and Request for Scheduling Conference, Case No. 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 29, 2018. Retrieved April 5, 2018.
  34. ↑ "Stockman v. Trump; Order DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case No. EDCV 17-01799 JGB (KKx)" (PDF). September 18, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
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.