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
April 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.