A federal judge pointed out on Wednesday that it was deeply skeptical that the management of the pentagon of the members of the transgender service complies with the federal law, roasting a government lawyer for hours on the scientific basis of the decision, its impact on military preparation and the alleged damage to the cohesion of the unit.
The United States District Judge, Ana Reyes, said he plans to issue a decision on politics from next week, but seemed to reject most of the arguments that defend the policy made by a lawyer from the Department of Justice, which often seemed to be lost by words about how to answer the judge’s questions.
The new Pentagon policy to separate members of the American Transgender Service of the Army faces its first legal evidence, since Judge Reyes considers that issuing an order that blocks the policy to arise effect.
“Let’s use the Secretary of Defense [Pete] Hegesh’s own words: transgender people lack warriors, are liars, lack integrity, are not humble, are selfish and cannot meet the physical requirements of mental aptitude, “Judge Reyes said during the audience on Wednesday.” Do you agree with me that calling liars and without integrity and not being able to meet the rigorous standards for discipline is restlessness, yes or no?
“Maybe,” the lawyer replied, arguing that Trump’s executive order and Hegesh’s directive do not use that exact language.
“So, people with gender dysphoria cannot be honest, humble or have integrity. Do you think that is degrading for people with gender dysphoria?” Judge Reyes then asked.
“I can’t answer that question,” the lawyer replied.
Judge Reyes pressed in a similar way to the government to explain the concerns of the Pentagon about the transgender soldiers who face a greater risk of suicidal ideation, saying that the government fundamentally misunderstood the studies that were summoned to defend politics. At a time of the hearing, he considered ordering the lawyers to read the studies, that the lawyers admitted that they had never read.
The Logo of the Department of Defense is seen in the wall in the press room of the press in the Pentagon, on October 29, 2024, in Washington.
Kevin Wolf/AP
“Do you know why people with transgender, with gender dysphoria, have higher suicide ideation rates?” She asked. “It is because they face such stigma and discrimination in society. All studies show that transgender people and people with gender dysphoria are no more inherently subject to suicide or they are likely to have a suicide ideation. That is not. It is not biological, it is not inherent.”
“I suppose I would agree with me with the following: the response to the ideation of suicide caused by discrimination is not greater discrimination, right?” The judge asked.
A lawyer from the Department of Justice responded by arguing that, although military leadership has addressed the treatment of transgender soldiers differently over the years, the court must trust the Department of Defense to know what is best for their soldiers.
“That is a policy election that is for the military to do, and it is something that this court should differ,” he said.
Previously, during the hearing, Judge Reyes said that the government “cited badly and” citing badly “and” the cherry tree collected “scientific studies to incorrectly affirm that transgender soldiers decrease the preparation and lethality of the military.
He also repeatedly suggested that politics is unfairly addressed to a class of people who do not like the Trump administration.
“The question in this case is whether the military under the rights of equal protection grant all Americans under the due process of the fifth amendment, if the military … can do that and point to a specific medical problem that affects a specific group that the administration disadvantages,” he said.
Judge Reyes also pressed a lawyer from the Department of Justice to identify any other similar medical problem that has caused a similar response from the Department of Defense.
“Identify me once in recent history in which the military has excluded a group of people for having a disqualifying problem, because I can’t think of one,” Judge Reyes asked.
The lawyer replied that the military applied a similar policy for the soldiers who refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine, which caused an incredulous judge to ask anyone in the gallery to raise their hand if they had been Covid.
“Many people raise their hands, right?” Judge Reyes said. “All different types of people … so not only had the objective of getting rid of a group of people.”
The plaintiffs have argued that the policy of the Department of Defense, which was ended at the end of February and prohibits the majority of the members of the transgender service to serve with some exceptions, violates the right of the fifth amendment to equal protection and causes irreparable damage to denigrating transgender soldiers, interrupting the cohesion of the unit and weakening the military.
“This case is a proof of the central democratic principle that makes our country it is worth defending: that each person is of equal dignity and value and has the right to the same protection of the laws,” said the plaintiffs.
The lawyers of the Department of Justice have defended the policy by arguing that the Court should not intervene in military decision making, describing gender dysphoria as a condition that causes “clinically significant distress or deterioration in the social, occupational or other important areas of human functioning.”
“The DOD has been particularly cautious about the service by people with mental health conditions, given the unique mental and emotional stress of military service,” government lawyers argued.
During a hearing last month, Judge Reyes, a Biden designated one who was the first LGBT judge in the DC district court, said a deep skepticism with the government’s statement that the members of the transgender service decrease the lethality or preparation of the military, although she declined to intervene until the DOD finished its policy.
When the policy was formalized last month, she quickly ordered the government to clarify the key principles of her policy, including the identification of what “mental health restriction” that is not the gender dysphoria that conflicts with the military standards of “honesty, humility and integrity.”
He also raised doubts about government claims about the exceptions to politics, marking in the court file a recent publication of the social networks of the Department of Defense that “transgender troops are disqualified from the service without an exemption.”
The hearing occurs in the middle of an increasingly hostile relationship between Judge Reyes and the Department of Justice.
After Judge Reyes excorted a lawyer from the Department of Justice last month during an hearing in the case, the Department of Justice filed a complaint with a judge of appeals about what they alleged that it was the “hostile and atrocious misconduct of kings.”
The chief of cabinet of the attorney general Pam Bondi, Chad Mizelle, claimed that Reyes demonstrated a political bias, committed the dignity of the procedures and inappropriately questioned a lawyer from the Department of Justice about his religious beliefs.
“At least, this issue guarantees greater investigation to determine if these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant corrective measures,” Mizelle wrote.
