Doe v. Trump
315 F. Supp. 3d 474
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- After President Trump announced via tweet (July 26, 2017) and a Presidential Memorandum (Aug. 25, 2017) that transgender persons would not be allowed to serve, DoD previously had permitted open transgender service and accession effective Jan. 1, 2018.
- The 2017 Presidential Memorandum ordered Secretary Mattis to submit by Feb. 2018 a plan to implement the President's directives (prohibit transgender accession; authorize discharge).
- Mattis submitted an Implementation Plan and a Panel Report (Feb. 2018) that disqualified most transgender individuals by targeting "gender dysphoria," gender transition, and requiring service in a service member's "biological sex," with a narrow grandfather clause for some currently serving members.
- Plaintiffs (current and prospective transgender service members) sued claiming Fifth Amendment due process violations; this Court issued a preliminary injunction (Oct. 30, 2017) preserving the status quo ante, and denied a stay; defendants later sought to dismiss and to dissolve the injunction after issuing the Implementation Plan and a 2018 Presidential Memorandum.
- The Court denies defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (standing and mootness) and to dissolve the preliminary injunction, holding the Mattis Implementation Plan effectively implements the challenged 2017 directives and continues to injure plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — current service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria | Plan stigmatizes and materially harms careers (assignments, promotion, cohesion); injury is concrete and imminent | Grandfather clause protects current diagnosed members, so they suffer no injury | Standing exists: stigmatic and prospective career harms confer Article III standing |
| Standing — prospective enlistees or applicants who have transitioned | Plan would bar them from accession (injury in fact) | They could enlist now under court injunction or obtain grandfathering; harm is self-inflicted/speculative | Standing exists: risk of being barred when injunction lifted is sufficient; rushing to enlist is not required to establish standing |
| Mootness — DoD changed policy via Implementation Plan and 2018 Memorandum | Plaintiffs' challenge to 2017 directives is moot because a "new" policy allows some service | Implementation Plan is not meaningfully different: it effectuates a ban via dysphoria/transition proxies and forcing service in "biological sex" | Not moot: plan implements the same fundamental exclusion; voluntary cessation doctrine and substitution do not eliminate controversy |
| Preliminary injunction dissolution | Changed circumstances (new plan) remove need for injunction | Injunction should remain to preserve status quo and prevent implementation of exclusionary policy | Injunction remains: defendants failed to show changed circumstances that undermine injunction factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (standing and limits of federal jurisdiction)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (future injury and standing doctrine)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative vs. certainly impending injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (concrete injury requirement)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (coerced forbearance does not defeat jurisdiction)
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (limitations on stigmatic-injury standing)
- Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728 (discrimination and stigmatic injury can confer standing)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (heavy burden to prove mootness by cessation)
- Northeast Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (when repeal/revision moots prior challenge)
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (one party with standing suffices for Article III)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (standing components)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (standing for each claim/relief)
- Glob. Tel*Link v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir.) (replacement rule that disadvantages plaintiffs in same fundamental way does not moot challenge)