Latest news with #Manion
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ struggles defending trans military ban during D.C. appeals court hearing
The Trump administration faced a skeptical panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday in a high-stakes hearing over its effort to reinstate a sweeping ban on transgender military service. In Talbott v. United States, the Justice Department defended the 2025 policy before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing that transgender people can serve so long as they do not transition or acknowledge their identity. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The three-judge panel included Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by former President Barack Obama, and Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term. Pillard called out the ban's core contradiction: 'Someone who has never been diagnosed with gender dysphoria but who has transitioned is explicitly banned,' she said. 'It's clearly banning all transgender persons.' DOJ attorney Jason Manion insisted the policy is about deployability and medical fitness, not identity. Pillard retorted, 'Your argument is that you can serve as a transgender person as long as you don't serve as a transgender person. Is that right?' Related: Judge reinstates nationwide stop to Trump's trans military ban Rao floated the premise that some transgender people might willingly serve in their birth sex. However, plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights dismantled that framing in court and in a conversation with The Advocate afterward. Boston-based GLAD Law is also representing the plaintiffs in this case. 'There's a history to this,' Minter said. 'Last time around, they tried to claim there are transgender people who are fine serving in their birth sex. But that's not what being transgender means. It's gaslighting. It's a pretense. It's a dodge.' Manion, who previously served as special counsel to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and is affiliated with the Federalist Society, frequently admitted he didn't know key facts—about how the policy would be implemented, whether it applied to veterans or reservists, or how many transgender service members it would impact. When asked how the military would identify people with symptoms of gender dysphoria, Manion responded, 'I don't know.' Asked if any other condition triggered automatic discharge without individual review, he said, 'Not that I'm aware of.' Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban During the March 13 district court hearing before Judge Ana Reyes, Manion's responses prompted the judge—an out LGBTQ+ appointee of President Joe Biden—to call a 30-minute recess and order DOJ attorneys to read the very studies they had cited. Reyes accused the administration of 'cherry-picking' research and 'egregiously misquoting' scientific evidence and, at one point, demanded Manion obtain a written retraction from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who had publicly claimed transgender troops lack integrity and a 'warrior ethos.' Although the DOJ insisted that the ban concerns a medical condition, Hegseth contradicted that assertion again on Sunday on X, formerly Twitter. 'Your agenda is illegals, trans & DEI — all of which are no longer allowed @ DoD,' he wrote in response to a post by the Democratic Party saying he should be out of a job after his second Signal chat leak scandal broke. Related: Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's trans military ban At the D.C. Circuit, the government appeared on similarly shaky ground. Plaintiffs' attorneys argue that the policy—formally rooted in Executive Order 14183—violates the Fifth Amendment and is steeped in unconstitutional animus. U.S. District Judge Reyes agreed in March, issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban and blasting it as 'soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.' However, the appeals court on Tuesday signaled that it might limit the injunction's scope to only the 32 named plaintiffs. Such a move would abandon thousands of transgender troops in every branch of the military, once again subjecting them to forced separation, canceled enlistments, or concealment. 'This is not a theoretical harm,' Minter told the court. 'These are people already serving, already deployed. If the injunction is limited, they'll have to out themselves, say they're part of a lawsuit—or be expelled.' After the hearing, Minter told The Advocate the DOJ's fallback argument—that animus doesn't matter if the government also has 'some good reasons'—was 'extraordinary' and dangerous. 'They're not disputing that the policy is based on animus,' he said. 'They're just saying it doesn't matter. That's not the law.' The Trump administration has already suffered a similar defeat across the country. Last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction in Emily Shilling v. United States, a parallel case out of Washington state. There, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle found no credible evidence that inclusive service harmed the military, writing, 'Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military's inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.' In both Talbott and Shilling, courts have so far agreed: Transgender people meet military standards, and targeting them serves no legitimate purpose. Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing In D.C., even Katsas—typically aligned with government deference—questioned the policy's internal logic. 'What sense does it make to make it harder to stay in than to get in?' he asked, pointing to the stricter retention standards compared to accession. The court's decision will be pivotal, especially on whether to uphold Reyes' nationwide injunction. For plaintiffs like Army Reserve Second Lt. Nic Talbott, who has fought to serve for nearly a decade, it's personal. 'I can't even describe how much I enjoy my time in uniform,' Talbott told The Advocate in March. 'If the court does issue an injunction, it'll be a huge sigh of relief—but the fight will not be over.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon's transgender military ban policy and a lower court's finding of animus behind the ban. Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday's oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect. "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons," Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. "And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy." Federal Judge Denies Trump Admin's Effort To Ban Transgender People From Military D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status. Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not. Read On The Fox News App "The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus," Manion responded. Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand "does something that is so extraordinarily unusual." "The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that," Minter said. Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the "irreparable harm" the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes' order. Hegseth Suggests Judge Report To Military Bases After Ruling That Pentagon Must Allow Transgender Troops Manion argued that Reyes' order not only affects the military's competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president's constitutional powers. Manion argued that the "main injuries" include the inability to enforce what the Department believes "to be a valid policy." Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about. "How has the military worked under a different policy?" Pillard asked. "It's striking to me that the government…has not stymied that." Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place "on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage." "Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?" Katsas asked. Manion said he believed some conditions "undergo an individualized process" in those situations. Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment. "This is a core area of presidential power," Manion said. "[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here." Minter likewise argued that there is "no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation," saying "every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job." Skeptical Judge Questions Executive Order Barring Transgender Service Members From Joining The Military "We don't talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that's just a red flag," Minter said. No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court. Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were "encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay." "The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership," Minter said. "Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure." At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness." In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm" that would warrant a preliminary injunction." The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21. Click To Get The Fox News App In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead "turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class." After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes' request, Reyes denied the government's motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter. Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this report. Original article source: 'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon's transgender military ban policy and a lower court's finding of animus behind the ban. Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday's oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect. "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons," Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. "And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy." D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status. Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not. "The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus," Manion responded. Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand "does something that is so extraordinarily unusual." "The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that," Minter said. Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the "irreparable harm" the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes' order. Manion argued that Reyes' order not only affects the military's competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president's constitutional powers. Manion argued that the "main injuries" include the inability to enforce what the Department believes "to be a valid policy." Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about. "How has the military worked under a different policy?" Pillard asked. "It's striking to me that the government…has not stymied that." Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place "on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage." "Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?" Katsas asked. Manion said he believed some conditions "undergo an individualized process" in those situations. Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment. "This is a core area of presidential power," Manion said. "[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here." Minter likewise argued that there is "no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation," saying "every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job." "We don't talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that's just a red flag," Minter said. No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court. Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were "encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay." "The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership," Minter said. "Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure." At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness." In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm" that would warrant a preliminary injunction." The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21. In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead "turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class." After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes' request, Reyes denied the government's motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter.
Reuters
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump administration pushes appeals court to enforce military's transgender ban
April 22 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged an appeals court to let it enforce its ban on openly transgender service members in the military. Jason Manion, arguing for the administration, asked a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to pause an order by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes last month blocking the ban while it considers the appeal more fully, arguing that courts must defer to the military's judgment. He also told the court that the government would soon ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift an order by a different appeals court blocking the ban in a separate case. Manion argued that both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court had allowed a similar ban to take effect during Trump's first term, though that ban applied only to new service members and allowed currently serving transgender members to remain. Both policies, Manion said, did not target people based on their transgender identity, but rather on the basis of having a diagnosis or symptoms of gender dysphoria — clinically significant distress at having one's sense of gender identity not match one's birth sex. The policy was "focused on a medical condition and related to medical treatments," he said, adding that people who identify as transgender can still serve as long as they do not have gender dysphoria or openly live as a sex different from their birth sex. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by Trump's Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, peppered Manion with skeptical questions throughout the argument. "Your argument that this is not a ban on transgender service is that you can serve as a transgender person as long as you don't serve as a transgender person, is that right?" she said. Pillard also noted that the policy followed an executive order by Trump, a Republican, calling for a ban on the grounds that transgender identity was "not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member." "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus (against transgender people) on its face," she said. Manion said that the policy could still be upheld if it could be explained by reasons other than animus, despite Trump's order. Shannon Minter, arguing for the current and would-be service members challenging the ban, urged the court to keep Reyes' block in place. The government has "identified literally no specific concrete harm" it would suffer if the ban remains blocked, Minter said, while the plaintiffs will be "labeled unfit for service for a reason that has no relation to their ability to do their job" if the ban is enforced. The other two members of the panel, Circuit Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, were both appointed to the court by Trump during his first term in office. Both asked relatively few questions and did not clearly signal how they would rule. The case is Talbott v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 25-5087. For the government: Jason Manion of the U.S. Department of Justice For the plaintiffs: Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights Trump takes aim at DEI, COVID expulsions and transgender troops
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Here's how a new law will fight catalytic converter thefts in Washington
Leaders in Washington want to keep criminals from stealing your car's catalytic converter. Starting April 1, a new bill will strengthen protections and fine people who don't play by the rules. Under House Bill 2153: Vehicle dealers will be required to mark catalytic converters so that when law enforcement comes across a stolen one, they can track it back to the source. Purchasers will be required to record who they purchase catalytic converters from and the vehicle identification number (VIN) from which it was removed. These records must be retained for three years. Purchasers must be licensed, regulated, and inspected. They will be fined at least $1,000 per violation. The licensing process will include a new $500 fee, which goes directly to the Washington State Patrol to fund inspections and enforcement. Anyone who knowingly and unlawfully traffics detached catalytic converters will face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Currently, when a catalytic converter is detached from a vehicle, police have no reliable way to trace it back to a specific vehicle. A catalytic converter is a metal cylinder that cleans a car's exhaust, making the air safer to breathe. People steal them to sell off what's inside. Often, there's platinum and palladium, worth more than $1,000 an ounce, and rhodium, worth almost $5,000 per ounce. They're also easy to steal. Someone can climb under a car and dismantle it in about 30 seconds. King County Prosecuting Attorney Leesa Manion hopes this new bill will curb catalytic converter thefts. 'For the first time, law enforcement and prosecutors will have the tools we need to hold people accountable for trafficking in stolen catalytic converters,' said Manion. 'That's a win for King County and for Washington State, and I am grateful to the partnership from the bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Cindy Ryu, and for the strong backing from the Washington legislature. If someone steals your catalytic converter, here is what Allstate Insurance says you'll notice: When you start your car, it will be loud because the thieves will have cut your exhaust pipe to steal it, which means the exhaust won't be channeled through the muffler. Your 'check engine' light will also come on, and you may smell exhaust fumes. If this happens, don't drive the car. Report the theft to the police and your car insurance company.
