Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: CAC: Transgender Ban Violates Constitution, Hurts Military

WASHINGTON – Constitutional Accountability Center today filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiffs in the case of Jane Doe 2 v. Trump, arguing that the Administration’s attempt to ban transgender individuals from military service violates the Constitution’s guarantee that all people enjoy equal protection of the laws.

CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod said, “Let’s be clear: The Trump Administration’s policy boils down to discrimination for discrimination’s sake. Appeals to military readiness, unit cohesion, or good order and discipline as justifications for shutting out transgender individuals who want to put their lives on the line in defense of their country, are the same sham pretexts once used to justify discriminatory treatment of African Americans, women, and gay and lesbian individuals. The Constitution of the United States prohibits such discriminatory treatment. Now that the military is integrated, it is stronger for it.

“President Trump, shooting from the lip as usual, failed to consult with his military advisers before tweeting the announcement of his transgender ban. No wonder. Transgender people were already serving openly in the military with no ill effects, and a study commissioned by the military and released before transgender people were allowed to serve openly concluded that open service would not negatively affect military effectiveness or unit cohesion. In fact, military experts agree that ending discriminatory policies and ensuring diversity in the military’s ranks has actually strengthened the military and its effectiveness.

“Discrimination hurts the military and the Constitution doesn’t allow it. We hope the court of appeals agrees.”

#

Resources:

CAC’s amicus brief in support of Jane Doe in Jane Doe 2 v. Trumphttps://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CAC-Jane-Doe-2-v-Trump-as-filed.pdf

##

Now in our tenth year, Constitutional Accountability Center is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history. Visit the new CAC website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Free Exercise Clause requires Colorado to allow religious preschool providers to join its state-funded universal preschool program even though they refuse...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen