#discrimibation - C.IM

Recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

Nonilex @Nonilex@masto.ai

New filing by the plaintiffs in Talbott v. United States — the challenge to #Trump's ban on #transgender #military service members.

Last Friday, the DOJ asked the court to dissolve the injunction.

Plaintiffs also argue DOJ gave no legitimate reason for a stay pending appeal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.96.0.pdf

#law #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA+ #discrimibation #bigotry #hate

There is no valid reason to dissolve the preliminary injunction issued by this Court on March 18, 2025. The legal standard is clear: a party seeking to dissolve an injunction must demonstrate "a significant change either in factual conditions or in law" that would make continued enforcement of the injunction "detrimental to the public interest." Doe 2 v. Shanahan, 755 F. App'x 19, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009)). Defendants fail to meet this burden on both counts. First, the mere issuance of guidance regarding the identification of transgender servicemembers does not constitute a significant change affecting this Court's analysis or ruling. Second, it is not the enforcement but rather the dissolution of this Court's preliminary injunction that would harm the public interest. With respect to their request for a stay pending appeal, Defendants make no effort to justify such a request, nor is there any viable justification. This Court already considered and correctly rejected Defendants' arguments in granting the preliminary injunction. Defendants have offered no new arguments or reasons to revisit them now.

Drag & drop to upload