A Department of Justice attorney defended President Donald Trump's policy on transgender military service before a Washington, D.C. appeals court on Tuesday.
According to the Washington Examiner, DOJ attorney Jason Manion argued that the president's authority to restrict military service for individuals with gender dysphoria falls within his core presidential powers and would enhance military readiness.
The case centers on Trump's executive order and subsequent policy implemented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, which allows transgender individuals to serve only if they identify with their biological sex and do not pursue medical treatments. The policy faces scrutiny from a three-judge panel considering whether to lift a lower court's block on the ban.
Justice Department defends presidential authority over military policy
Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, challenged Manion's interpretation of the policy during the hearing. She questioned the government's lack of supporting data and highlighted that no adverse effects were documented when transgender service members served without restrictions under former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Manion maintained that the government was not constitutionally required to produce extensive evidence. He emphasized that the administration had conducted thorough research during Trump's first term, including expert consultations and interviews.
The DOJ attorney stressed that blocking the policy implementation would cause irreparable harm to Trump and Hegseth's ability to enforce crucial military decisions.
Legal challenges mount against transgender service policy
The current lawsuit represents one of at least three legal challenges to the policy. More than two dozen service members, including decorated active-duty personnel who identify as transgender, filed the suit claiming unjust discrimination.
Shannon Minter, representing the plaintiffs, warned that transgender troops face immediate separation from service if courts support Trump's position. He emphasized the unprecedented nature of the government's open expression of animosity toward a specific group.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already denied the administration's request to lift a separate injunction on the policy. The DOJ plans to seek Supreme Court intervention in that case.
Obama appointee questions policy implementation
Judge Pillard highlighted the apparent contradiction in the policy's approach, as demonstrated in this exchange with Manion:
So, 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?
Manion defended the policy's focus on gender dysphoria, explaining:
This is a core area of presidential power. This is something where the military has determined that this policy will increase the readiness and effectiveness of the military, and in fact, that not being able to enact it would be harmful to the military.
Defending military readiness amid legal controversy
Judge Neomi Rao questioned whether the lower court judge erred in finding that Trump's and Hegseth's policies demonstrated animus toward all transgender individuals. While Manion did not deny the presence of animus, he argued that the administration's extensive research and expert consultation offset these concerns.
The government maintains that the policy specifically targets individuals with gender dysphoria rather than the entire transgender community. They argue this distinction is crucial for maintaining military effectiveness and readiness.
These legal proceedings could significantly impact military policy and the lives of transgender service members.
High stakes battle over military inclusion continues
The Department of Justice's defense of Trump's transgender military policy highlights the ongoing tension between presidential authority and equal rights protections. As the case moves through the appeals process, more than two dozen service members face potential separation from the military despite their decorated service records. With multiple legal challenges pending and the possibility of Supreme Court involvement, the final resolution of this policy remains uncertain.
