Barbiemaker Mattel plans to increase prices because of Trump’s rates

The three liberal members of the Court – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – noted dissidents, but did not cause reasoning.

The case concerns an executive order issued on the first day of President Trump’s second term. It has withdrawn an order from President Joseph R. Biden Jr. As a result, transgender service members openly served.

A week later Mr. Trump out A second order Say that “the approval of a gender identity that is not in accordance with the sexual conflicts of an individual with the dedication of a soldier to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle.”

In February, the Ministry of Defense implemented the command of Mr Trump and issued a new policy for which transgender troops from the army must be forced to be forced.

Seven active service members, as well as a person who wants to register and has sued a representation of interests to block the policy and say, among other things, that it ran the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

One of the claimants, Cmdr. Emily ShillingWho started to switch in 2021 while serving the navy, has been a navy flyer for 19 years and flew more than 60 combat missions, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her lawyers say that the Navy spent $ 20 million on her training.

In March, judge Benjamin H. Settle, from the federal court in Tacoma, Wash. a national order issued Blocking the prohibition, using commander Shilling as an example of the mistakes of the policy.

“There is no claim and no evidence that she was now or ever a disadvantage of the coherence of her unity, or for the deadliness or willingness of the army, or that she is mentally or physically unable to continue her service,” wrote Judge Settle. “There is no claim and no evidence that Shilling is unfair or selfish, or that she lacks humility or integrity. Yet she will be abandoned only because she is transgender only because she is transgender.”

Judge Settle, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote that the government had not demonstrated that the prohibition “is considerably related to achieving unit cohesion, good order or discipline.”

“Although the court is respectful for military decision -making,” the judge added, “would be a distance from the government’s flat absence to tackle the non -secondary evidence of claimants that years of open transgender service promoted these objectives.”

The American Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit refused to block Judge Sorth’s ruling while it considered the appeal of the administration.

The administration then Seek Emergency Aid From the Supreme Court, saying that “the order of the court cannot be held with the substantial reverence that the professional military judgments of the department owe.”

The government said at least that the Supreme Court should limit the judgment of the judge Selly in the case to the claimants and the balance of the national order.

The judgment of the Judge Sorth followed A similar from judge Ana C. Reyes from the federal court in Washington. “The law does not demand that the court stamps illogical judgments based on suspicions,” wrote Judge Reyes, who was appointed by Mr. Biden.

The District of Columbia Circuit has arrived An ‘administrative stay’, Saying the short break when maintaining the ruling of Judge Reyes “should not be interpreted in any way as a ruling on the merits.” It is expected from that court that it will soon be ruling at the request of the government to block the ruling of judge Reyes while the appeal is progressing.

Early in his first term, President Trump announced a transgender ban on TwitterBut the policy was blocked by two federal judges.

Who were orders Deller in 2019 by the Supreme Court With a voice of 5 to 4, which makes a revised ban in force, while legal challenges continue. Things were withdrawn after Mr Trump had left office and Mr Biden caught up with the prohibition.

In her application on Thursday, the administration said that the policy with regard to transgender troops permitted by the Justices in 2019 was material identical to the new one.

The challengers that disputedSaying that the earlier policy allowed active service members who had already switched to stay in the armed forces, what the new policy of Mr Trump does not do. They added that the earlier policy “the animus loaded language” of the new was missing, which they said that they “transgender people as inherent, undisciplined, unfair, selfish, arrogant and unable to meet the rigorous standards of military service.”