Stone v. Trump

Last updated

Stone, et al v. Trump, et al
DistrictCourtMarylandSeal.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Maryland
DecidedPending (filed August 28, 2017)
Defendant Donald Trump
James Mattis
Ryan McCarthy
Richard Spencer
Heather Wilson
Plaintiff(s)Brock Stone
Kate Cole
Theodore D’Atri
Seven Ero George
Teagan Gilbert
Tommie Parker
ACLU of Maryland
John Doe
Citation(s)1:17-cv-02459-MJG
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Marvin J. Garbis

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. [1] [2] [3] [4] In addition to President Trump, the suit named as defendants the Secretaries of Defense (James Mattis), the Army (Ryan McCarthy, acting), the Navy (Richard Spencer), and the Air Force (Heather Wilson). [5] : 1 

Contents

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". [6] 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] [7] Trump issued formal guidance on the ban to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security in a memorandum on August 25, 2017. [8]

History

The initial complaint was filed on August 28, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of five named and one anonymous transgender personnel either currently serving on active duty or in the National Guard. The complaint cited news articles that "indicate that President Trump's motivations in abruptly announcing a transgender ban were largely political, reflecting a desire to placate legislators and advisers who bear animus and moral disapproval toward men and women who are transgender" and further stated there was "no evidence that this about-face in policy was supported by any study of the issue or any consultation with military officers, DoD [Department of Defense] officials, other military experts, or medical or legal experts". [5] : 1, 21 

An amended complaint was filed on September 14, noting that one of the named plaintiffs, Staff Sergeant Kate Cole, had been denied medically-indicated surgery on September 8. [9] : 7  That same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. In the attached memorandum in support, the Plaintiffs noted that "President Trump’s asserted military justifications have already been studied at length and rejected by the military itself. The Ban reflects a decision to single out a disfavored group and withdraw legal protection based not on evidence but animus, moral disapproval, and crass political calculation." The memorandum also argued that "each day that President Trump’s unconstitutional directive remains in effect, Plaintiffs and their families continue to grapple with the stress and uncertainty of having their careers, their livelihoods, and their medical care jeopardized by a Commander-in-Chief who rejects their service and their sacrifice." [10] : 2 

The United States Department of Justice Civil Division (USDOJ) filed a motion to dismiss on October 12, 2017, calling the request for a preliminary injunction "premature several times over" as Secretary Mattis's Interim Guidance of September 14, 2017 would prevent involuntary discharge, separation, or denied re-enlistment at least until March 2018. [11] : 1  Senior medical and commanding officers provided sworn statements that they would comply with the Interim Guidance, in support of USDOJ's arguments. [12]

In response, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed an opposing motion on October 27, 2017 which noted the Presidential Memorandum of August 25, 2017 prohibited the accession (enlistment and commissioning) of transgender people into the military as of January 1, 2018, the funding of "sex-reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel" would cease on March 23, 2018, and the Secretary of Defense was directed to "return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service" which required involuntary discharge of personnel solely on the basis of their transgender status, also on March 23. [13] : 1  Three separate amici briefs were filed in support of the complaint, by The Trevor Project (October 26), [14] retired military officers (October 27/corrected October 30), [15] and the same fourteen states and the District of Columbia which had collectively filed an earlier, similar brief in Doe v. Trump (October 30). [16] On November 3, the government filed a motion in support of their earlier motion to dismiss, stating the Presidential Memorandum of August 25 "specifically directs the Secretary of Defense to study how to address transgender individuals who are currently serving in the military and does not predetermine the outcome of that study" and the "reliance on statements that the President made on Twitter several weeks before issuing his Presidential Memorandum is misplaced." [17] : 1, 6 

During this time, Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a partial preliminary injunction to the proposed ban in Doe v. Trump on October 30. For Stone v. Trump, the Plaintiffs filed a memorandum on October 31, asking to continue consideration of the preliminary injunction as several of the plaintiffs in this case were affected by the ban on medically necessary surgeries implemented by the Presidential Memorandum of August 25. [18] USDOJ argued on November 7 the preliminary injunction in Doe v. Trump "has, in large measure, provided Plaintiffs with the remedy that they seek at this stage" and "[t]his Court should therefore stay all proceedings". [19]

Preliminary injunction

President Trump’s tweets did not emerge from a policy review, nor did the Presidential Memorandum identify any policymaking process or evidence demonstrating that the revocation of transgender rights was necessary for any legitimate national interest. [...] Moreover, the Court finds that, based on the exhibits and declarations currently on the record, the Directives are unlikely to survive a rational review. The lack of any justification for the abrupt policy change, combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military service members who have served our country capably and honorably, cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest.

— Judge Marvin J. Garbis, Stone v. Trump, F.Supp.3d 747, 768 [20]

On November 21, 2017, Judge Marvin J. Garbis issued a preliminary injunction to the entire Presidential Memorandum of August 25. [21] Judge Garbis's order also blocks the prohibition on gender reassignment surgery, going further than Judge Kollar-Kotelly's October 2017 injunction in the related case Doe v. Trump. [22] In the order, Judge Garbis wrote "A capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy changes", referring to the July tweets by President Trump announcing the reinstatement of the ban, which had caught Pentagon leadership by surprise and drew swift condemnation from senior retired officers. [23]

Appeals

USDOJ filed a notice of appeal on December 5. [24] USDOJ also asked the Court to clarify on December 12 if Secretary Mattis retained independent authority to further delay the accession (the process of entering military service, whether through enlistment, Service Academy, ROTC, or similar programs) of transgender candidates. [25] : 2  Under the status quo enforced by the preliminary injunction, accession of transgender candidates was set to start on January 1, 2018. This date resulted from the postponement by Secretary Mattis of six months after the initial deadline of July 1, 2017 under the accession plan proposed by Secretary Carter in 2016. USDOJ asked for the clarification to be issued by noon, December 14. [25] : 9  [26] : 1, 6–7  The parties had a conference on December 13, confirming that discovery should conclude by April 24, 2018, and the trial or hearing would be held in July 2018. [27]

On December 14, USDOJ filed an emergency motion for a stay on Judge Garbis's order with the Fourth Circuit. [28] The emergency motion used similar language to the emergency motion filed on December 11 with the D.C. Circuit in Doe v. Trump. [29] Both appeal court motions asked for a stay that would allow Secretary Mattis to issue a second delay for accession of transgender candidates to military service. Alternatively, the stay could act to narrowly constrain the preliminary injunction to allow the accession of only Seven Ero George, the single Plaintiff in Stone v. Trump that Judge Garbis ruled had standing to challenge the ban on accessions. [26] : 2–3  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the emergency motion on December 18, stating "[i]t was the President's unconstitutional actions that ended an orderly process [of planned accession]" and "[defendants did] not explain why the months of training that have already occurred are insufficient, or offer an explanation of what training they believe remains necessary and how long it would take." [30] : 3, 4  In support, USDOJ stated "that implementation [of accession] was put on hold on August 25, 2017" and "the military will still have to take significant steps in order to meet an unexpected January 1 deadline". [31] : 8 

Plaintiffs followed up with a memorandum of supplemental authority on December 19 after the Pentagon memorandum of December 8 outlining guidance for accession of transgender candidates was introduced in Karnoski v. Trump. [32] USDOJ argued "Secretary Mattis cannot, without risking contempt, exercise his independent authority to give the military more time to consider a momentous change to its accession standards" and produced a follow-up memorandum, dated December 19. [33]

On December 21, 2017, a panel of three judges on the Fourth Circuit denied USDOJ's emergency motion for a stay on Judge Garbis's order. [34] [35] Judge Garbis also denied the Motion for Clarification and Partial Stay on December 28, noting the defendants were "request[ing] judicial advice as to what can be done to delay transgender accession to the military that will not risk a contempt finding" and they also had "not met their burden to establish irreparable harm if they must implement the accessions provision by January 1, 2018". [36] : 2  USDOJ filed a motion to withdraw the appeal, which was granted on February 2, 2018. [37]

Discovery

On January 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel initial disclosures, [38] which was granted on February 6. [39] In their motion, the Plaintiffs stated the "Defendants’ two-sentence “initial disclosure” contains none of the required identifications, and is tantamount to no disclosure at all" instead of identifying the individuals, documents, and information that may be used to support their defense. [40] Both sides entered into an agreement to enable confidential documents to be designated as privileged and protected from public disclosure on February 12. [41] [42]

As in Doe v. Trump, USDOJ moved to dismiss the claims against the President and partially dissolve the preliminary injunction on March 1, 2018, arguing "the President is not a proper defendant in this case" as separation of powers dictates "the non-ministerial conduct of the President when he acts in his official capacity cannot be enjoined." [43] : 1, 3  In their response, counsel for the Plaintiffs characterized the motion as a "startling proposition [that] should be rejected" and the "President is no king, but he too may be sued. This court has the power to determine whether the President has acted within the law, and to declare that the President violated the law." They added the "Defendants’ argument that the President has absolute immunity from a lawsuit challenging his own unconstitutional actions is based on little more than sleight-of-hand", noting the USDOJ arguments relied on citing cases where injunctive relief was applied, instead of declaratory relief. [44] : 1–2, 4  USDOJ replied that declaratory and injunctive relief were equivalent. [45] : 2 

New Trump memorandum

After President Trump issued a new memorandum on March 23, 2018, revoking the prior Memorandum of August 25, [46] USDOJ moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction [47] and asked for a protective order. [48] The motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction noted the new policy was not "a categorical ban based on transgender status, [but instead] this new policy, like the Carter policy before it, would turn on the medical condition of gender dysphoria and contain a nuanced set of exceptions allowing some transgender individuals, including every individual Plaintiff here, to serve." [47] : 1  Since the new policy of March 2018 establishes gender dysphoria as a disqualifying medical condition, [47] : 6–8  USDOJ argued "the military's new policy is constitutional", especially since the basis for the new policy asserted "that retaining the Carter policy would pose risks to military readiness". [47] : 2  The proposed protective order asked that discovery should be halted, or the scope of discovery should be "significantly narrow[ed]" in light of the new policy. [48] : 1 

On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint addressing the new Memorandum. [49] The defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 11, arguing that the Department of Defense issued the new policy only after a "methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy changes." [50] : 49 

On August 14, the court denied the defendants' motion for a protective order, and simultaneously granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendants to disclose documents in response to discovery. [51]

See also

Related Research Articles

Aleta Arthur Trauger is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Same-sex marriage in Alabama has been legal since June 26, 2015, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Not all counties immediately complied with the ruling, copying behavior from the civil rights era when they had refused to perform interracial marriages. A year after the Supreme Court ruling, only twelve counties would either issue licenses to no one or only to opposite-sex couples. By 2017, this number had dropped to only eight counties, with all eight refusing to issue licenses to anyone. In May 2019, the Alabama Legislature passed a bill replacing the option that counties issue marriage licenses and perform marriage ceremonies with the requirement of counties to record marriage certificates. Subsequently, all counties complied and announced on August 29, 2019 that they would record marriage certificates for interracial and same-sex couples. Previously, Alabama had banned the licensing of same-sex marriages and the recognition of such marriages from other jurisdictions by executive order in 1996, by statute in 1998, and by constitutional amendment in June 2006.

<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.

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.

<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>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:

<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>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.

Dallas School District is a public school district in Dallas, Oregon. The district consists of eight schools that serve Dallas and surrounding areas.

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.

References

  1. ↑ "ACLU sues Trump over transgender military ban". San Francisco Chronicle . Associated Press. August 28, 2017. Archived from the original on August 29, 2017. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  2. ↑ "ACLU sues Trump over transgender military ban". Los Angeles Times . Associated Press. August 28, 2017. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  3. ↑ Kennedy, Merrit (August 28, 2017). "2 Lawsuits Challenge Trump's Ban On Transgender Military Service". NPR . Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  4. 1 2 Jouvenal, Justin (August 28, 2017). "ACLU challenges Trump administration's transgender military ban". The Washington Post . Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  5. 1 2 "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG". American Civil Liberties Union. August 28, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  6. ↑ Note, Recent Social Media Posts: In Tweets, President Purports to Ban Transgender Servicemembers , 131 Harv. L. Rev. 934 (2018).
  7. ↑ de Vogue, Ariane (August 28, 2017). "Transgender service members sue over Trump military ban". CNN . Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  8. ↑ "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.
  9. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. September 14, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  10. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. September 14, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  11. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Application for a Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG". American Civil Liberties Union. October 12, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  12. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Notice of Filing Redacted Declarations and the Interim Guidance, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 25, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  13. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG". American Civil Liberties Union. October 27, 2017. Retrieved November 2, 2017.
  14. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Proposed Brief amicus curiae of the Trevor Project in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 26, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  15. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Corrected Brief of Retired Military Officers and Former National Security Officials as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 30, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  16. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. 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 a Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 30, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  17. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG". American Civil Liberties Union. November 3, 2017. Retrieved November 14, 2017.
  18. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Notice of Supplemental Authority in Further Support Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. October 31, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  19. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. November 7, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  20. ↑ Stone v. Trump, F.Supp.3d747, 768(D. Md.2017).
  21. ↑ Marimow, Ann E. (November 21, 2017). "Federal judge says Trump administration can't stop funding sex-reassignment surgery for military members". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 21, 2017.
  22. ↑ Philipps, Dave (November 21, 2017). "Second Judge Blocks Trump's Transgender Ban in the Military". The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2017.
  23. ↑ Stone v. Trump, F.Supp.3d747 , 771(D. Md.2017).
  24. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Notice of Appeal, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 5, 2017. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
  25. 1 2 "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Motion for Clarification and, if Necessary, a Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 12, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017.
  26. 1 2 "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Appellants' Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Partial Stay Pending Appeal, Case 17-cv-2398" (PDF). Washington Blade. December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 15, 2017.
  27. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Order Confirming Conference, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 13, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2017.
  28. ↑ Johnson, Chris (December 14, 2017). "Trump admin not done fighting transgender military enlistments". Washington Blade. Retrieved December 15, 2017.
  29. ↑ "Jane Doe, et. al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.; Appellants' Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Partial Stay Pending Appeal, Case 17-cv-05267" (PDF). Think Progress. December 11, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  30. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Opposition to Appellants' Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Partial Stay Pending Appeal, Case 17-cv-2398". ACLU. December 18, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  31. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Appellants' Reply in Support of Emergency Motion for Administrative Stay and Partial Stay Pending Appeal, Case 17-cv-2398". ACLU. December 19, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  32. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum of Supplemental Authority, Case 17-cv-2398". ACLU. December 19, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  33. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Response to Memorandum of Supplemental Authority, Case 17-cv-2398". ACLU. December 20, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  34. ↑ Chung, Andrew (December 22, 2017). "US Court Rejects Trump Bid to Stop Transgender Military Recruits on Jan. 1". Reuters. Reuters. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  35. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Order, Case 17-cv-2398". ACLU. December 21, 2017. Retrieved December 22, 2017.
  36. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum & order re: Clarification, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. December 28, 2017. Retrieved January 29, 2018.
  37. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Order, Case 17-cv-2398" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 2, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  38. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. January 26, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  39. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Order re: Rule 26(a) Compliance, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 6, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  40. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. January 26, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  41. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Order, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 12, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  42. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Uniform Protective Order and Cross-Use Agreement, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. February 6, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  43. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Partially Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 1, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  44. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Response to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 9, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  45. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Partial Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Motion to Partially Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 16, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  46. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Notice, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  47. 1 2 3 4 "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  48. 1 2 "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order, Case 1:17-cv-02459-MJG" (PDF). Equality Case Files. March 23, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  49. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case 17-cv-02459". ACLU. April 23, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  50. ↑ "Stone, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Case 17-cv-02459". ACLU. May 11, 2018. Retrieved November 26, 2018.
  51. ↑ "Stone v. Trump, Civil No. GLR-17-2459". August 14, 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.