Trump's Justice Department Continues Reversals on Trans Rights
(Bloomberg) -- Transgender Americans are getting whiplash as legal protections they secured under former President Barack Obama continue to vanish in the Trump administration.
Obama sidestepped Congress to achieve those rights, speeding things up in a drive for what he called inclusion and social progress. But that method has made it easy for President Donald Trump to hit the rewind button.
Transgender policy shifts since Trump's election victory have run the gamut, from bathroom use in schools to enlisting in the U.S. military. On Tuesday, the Justice Department rescinded an Obama-era memo that directed federal prosecutors to interpret the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 to bar workplace discrimination against transgender employees.
“Today marks another low point for a Department of Justice, which has been cruelly consistent in its hostility towards the LGBT community and in particular its inability to treat transgender people with basic dignity and respect," James Esseks, a director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
Abandoned Principle
Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department expanded the law beyond what Congress intended, abandoning a fundamental principle, according to Devin M. O'Malley, a spokesman for the agency in Washington.
"This Department remains committed to protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all individuals, and will continue to enforce the numerous laws that Congress has enacted that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," O'Malley said in an emailed statement.
In the memo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said his predecessor, Eric Holder, erred in 2014 by declaring that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex-discrimination, applied to transgender employees.
"Although federal law, including Title VII, provides various protections to transgender individuals, Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se," Sessions said in the memo.
The memo was held up by civil rights groups as further evidence of Trump undermining the rights of LGBT Americans. Sessions previously rolled back an Obama-era memo directing public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom for the gender they identify with.
And in July, Trump tweeted a ban on transgender soldiers in the military. That same month, Sessions filed a brief in an employment discrimination suit arguing Title VII shouldn't be used to protect employees from being fired for being gay or lesbian. The agency also filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court backing a Colorado bakery in a case over its refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
‘Jaw-Dropping Policy'
“The DOJ's jaw-dropping policy conflicts with years of interpretation from both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts," Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the nonprofit Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "Sessions is openly directing the Department to ignore their responsibilities in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”
Also this week, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit by members of the armed forces challenging Trump's proposed ban on transgender soldiers, citing the court system's long history of “healthy deference" to the military on constitutional matters.
The government's primary argument in that case is that the lawsuit is premature, because the policy is still in the planning stage. But the agency urged the judge to defer to the political branches on issues of national defense on the grounds that courts have less competence to second-guess military decision-making.
Courts have long upheld the military's exclusionary rules while invalidating similar policies "in the civilian sphere," the U.S. Justice Department said in a filing Wednesday in federal court in the District of Columbia. For example, the courts allowed the Air Force to bar a Jewish officer from wearing a yarmulke while working as a psychologist in a base hospital, according to the filing.
“Of course, there are limits,” the U.S. said in Wednesday's filing. "No amount of deference could save the military's decision to exclude a race or religion from being considered."
"But outside those extreme examples, the military's policies are entitled to a ‘healthy deference' their civilian counterparts do not enjoy,” the government said.
Military Readiness
The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that transgender Americans are already being harmed because those who are looking to enlist aren't able to do so, and current transgender soldiers have been demeaned, stigmatized and denied health care.
Trump advocated for the ban saying it's needed to ensure military readiness and save money that is being spent on surgeries for transgender soldiers.
The case is Doe v. Trump, 17-cv-1597, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editors responsible for this story: David Glovin at dglovin@bloomberg.net, Andrew Martin, Joe Schneider
-
The Economic Imperative: Analysing The Material Driving Force Behind India-Canada Strategic Reset
This economic complementarity is further reinforced by deep institutional investment ties and talent mobility, which form the bedrock of the bilateral framework.
-
Medicine Pricing: Where Must Profit Stop?
India must confront excessive margins, hidden incentives and regulatory gaps that threaten the integrity of medicine.
-
Why Amazon And Flipkart Are Struggling To Beat Meesho In India's Smaller Cities
With 274 million users and lowest-cost logistics, Meesho is defending its value commerce crown against giants like Amazon and Flipkart.
-
High US Salaries, No Green Card Certainty: The Financial Calculation Facing Indian H-1B Families
The suspension of PERM processing at eight technology employers does not cancel existing H-1B visas. What it does is force a question many Indian families have been avoiding: is the US salary worth tying your career and family plans to one employer?
-
Swiggy vs Eternal: Food Delivery's Two Rivals Are No Longer In The Same Race
Eternal is building a private AI assistant, dark.ai. Swiggy is still working out how to make Instamart pay, with an operating loss of Rs 895 crore in the July-September quarter while Blinkit stayed profitable.
-
Where You Live Shapes How You Get To Work | The Reason Why
Two-wheelers are the most popular way to get to work in India, accounting for nearly 43% of workplace commutes.
-
Unhedged Position: Can India See An Indonesia-Style Time Correction?
The Nifty is trading below levels it first clocked in 2024. Is there, then, as I have suggested in the headline, potential that the current time correction drags on painfully for the next three-five, even ten years?
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.
-
France's Economy & Politics Are In Crisis | The Reason Why
Let's look at how the French economy and politics evolved under Nicolas Sarkozy, Franois Hollande and Emmanuel Macron.