Connect with us

U.S. Federal Courts

DOJ to ask Supreme Court to halt courts’ mifepristone restrictions

Texas judge, 5th Circuit ruled against abortion drug

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Justice Department is expected to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a pair of rulings by a federal court in Texas and a federal appellate court in New Orleans that would restrict the sale and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Last week, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a stay of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug 23 years ago, effectively barring its sale and distribution nationwide.

The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled late Wednesday night that access to the drug would not be prohibited pending the outcome of litigation in the case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.

However, in the meantime the appellate court preserved other restrictions on mifepristone from Kacsmaryk’s ruling including the prohibition of distributing the medicine by mail or prescribing its FDA approved generic equivalent and requiring that it be prescribed only after three in-person visits with a healthcare provider, and only up to seven weeks of pregnancy.

ā€œThe Justice Department strongly disagrees with the 5th Circuitā€™s decision in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA to deny in part our request for a stay pending appeal,ā€ U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement on Thursday.

ā€œWe will be seeking emergency relief from the Supreme Court to defend the FDAā€™s scientific judgment and protect Americansā€™ access to safe and effective reproductive care,ā€ Garland said.

ā€œWe are going to continue to fight in the courts, we believe the law is on our side, and we will prevail,ā€ White House Press SecretaryĀ Karine Jean-PierreĀ told reporters early Thursday during President Joe Bidenā€™s trip to Ireland.

The Supreme Court typically acts on such requests in a matter of days, often without explanation.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Federal Courts

Second judge blocks Trump’s anti-trans military ban

Federal courts in D.C. and Washington State have now issued injunctions

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Thursday became the second court to issue a nationwide injunction blocking the enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order barring transgender people from military service.

The order in Schilling v. Trump from Judge Benjamin Hale Settle comes after Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked implementation of the ban earlier this month in Talbott v. Trump.

Friday was the date by which the Pentagon was to begin identifying and separating transgender service members from the armed forces, per Trump’s executive action.

The lead attorneys in Talbott v. Trump, GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, shared statements about the injunction in a press release by NCLR.

ā€œGiven the thousands of brave and decorated transgender servicemembers facing unthinkable harms as the result of this ban, we are heartened but not surprised by todayā€™s decision,ā€ Levi said. “President Trump’s executive order and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth’s implementation represent a policy that cannot be constitutionally justified. Thousands of transgender servicemembers currently serving have clearly demonstrated they meet all military standards, with many deployed to critical missions worldwide, proving their capabilities beyond question.”

Levi continued, “These dedicated servicemembers and their families have earned our nation’s gratitude and respect, and the government has a responsibility to honor the commitments it has made to them. This is about keeping faith with Americans who have risked everything to defend our freedoms.”

ā€œIn both Talbott and Shilling, it was abundantly clear to the court that it must act swiftly to protect our troops from an unconstitutional and indefensible ban that would disrupt the lives and dismantle the careers of thousands of transgender servicemembers and their families,” Minter said. “The harms associated with this ban are gut-wrenching.ā€

Minter continued, ā€œIn each of these cases, the government did not even attempt to claim that any evidence supported its position. There is no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably.ā€

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge hears case that challenges Trump passport executive order

State Department no longer issues passports with ‘X’ gender markers

Published

on

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the private law firm Covington & Burling LPP filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit names Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendants.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an ā€œXā€ gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

Trump signed the executive order that overturned it shortly after he took office. Rubio later directed State Department personnel to ā€œsuspend any application requesting an ā€˜Xā€™ sex marker and do not take any further action pending additional guidance from the department.ā€  

ā€œEven before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,ā€ said Orr, a transgender man who lives in West Virginia, in a press release the ACLU released before U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick heard the case. ā€œLike many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license.”

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, described the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy as “openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether.”

Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.

WorldPride is scheduled to take place in D.C. from May 17-June 8. InterPride, the organization that coordinates WorldPride events, on March 12 issued its own travel advisory for trans and nonbinary people who want to travel to the U.S.

It is unclear when Kobick will issue her ruling. 

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Court halts removal of two transgender service members

Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

Published

on

Laila and Logan Ireland (Photo courtesy of the couple)

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.

The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.

“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the governmentā€™s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.

Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular