Trump's abrupt order to ban transgender people from serving in the military, which the Pentagon initially refused to follow because it was issued on Twitter, has been blocked in court for a second time.
Much like the previous ruling against Trump's ban, District Court Judge Marvin Garbis wrote that the Trump regime presented no reasonable basis for a ban.
(Reuters) - A second federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military, ruling that the prohibition likely amounts to unconstitutional discrimination.
U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore ruled that the ban lacked justification and “cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” His ruling follows a similar one by a federal judge in Washington on Oct. 30.
The new ruling also goes further than the previous one, lifting a ban on transgender-related health care.
In his 53-page order, Garbis said the transgender service members challenging the ban have “demonstrated that they are already suffering harmful consequences such as the cancellation and postponements of surgeries, the stigma of being set apart as inherently unfit, facing the prospect of discharge and inability to commission as an officer, the inability to move forward with long-term medical plans, and the threat to their prospects of obtaining long-term assignments.”
As we've been over before, the cost of transgender health care is more or less insignificant. Transgender service members are a very small minority and not all of them elect to undergo surgery. The military services spend far more money on boner pills each year.
With all of that said, this isn't the end of the road. The Trump regime will undoubtedly fight this all the way to the Supreme Court and they will lose. It seems plausible that the Supreme Court may decline to even hear the case if every single federal court rules against the ban before it reaches them.
The arguments in favor of a ban are so hollow at face value I doubt even the arch conservative Fifth Circuit would uphold it.