"In a court filing that reads more like a culture war manifesto than a legal argument, disgraced former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and conservative allies this week urged a federal appeals court to uphold President Donald Trump's renewed ban on transgender military service. Their amicus brief in Talbott v. United States not only casts transgender people as mentally ill and dangerous, it argues that courts have no power to review the president's military policies at all - a claim legal scholars say veers toward authoritarianism."
"The 34-page brief, submitted Tuesday on behalf of groups including Citizens United and Public Advocate, supports the administration's appeal to reinstate Executive Order 14183, which categorically excludes transgender people from the armed forces. The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, following a decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., to block the policy earlier this year. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to begin enforcing the ban while litigation continues, lifting a similar nationwide injunction in a case out of Washington state."
"The filing leans on deeply contested and false claims. Gender dysphoria is described as a "serious mental illness." Transgender people, the brief asserts, suffer from rates of depression, substance use, suicidality, and HIV infection so severe that their service would pose a national security threat."
Michael Flynn and conservative groups filed an amicus brief in Talbott v. United States urging the D.C. Circuit to reinstate Executive Order 14183, which bars transgender people from military service. The 34-page filing, submitted on behalf of groups including Citizens United and Public Advocate, characterizes transgender people as mentally ill and dangerous and cites higher rates of depression, substance use, suicidality, and HIV as national security concerns. The brief also contends that courts lack authority to review presidential military policy, a position legal scholars say approaches authoritarianism. A district court previously blocked the policy, while the Supreme Court allowed interim enforcement during ongoing litigation.
Read at Advocate.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]