Pentagon Must Show Trans Ban Documents

The Defense Department has said the documents are irrelevant and that exposing them would hinder future discussions between low-level officials and their superiors – claims the court rejected. File photo: Pixabay.

New York – The Pentagon can’t hide documents it relied upon to justify its ban on transgender people serving openly in the military. That’s the ruling in a federal lawsuit challenging the ban.

For the past 18 months, lawyers for the individual plaintiffs and groups that filed the suit have sought documents on the research and reasoning behind the ban that took effect last April.

Carl Charles, staff attorney with Lambda Legal – one of the organizations litigating the case, says the documents are necessary to show what, if any, factual basis the Pentagon had for enacting the ban that was initiated by a presidential tweet.

“Finally, we can see what we suspect to be true,” says Charles. “Which is that the government relied on animus in creating this ban on open transgender service, rather than any kind of science or reasoned evidence.”


FREE DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION: GET ONLY 'FEATURED' STORIES BY EMAIL

Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox.
 

The Defense Department has said the documents are irrelevant and that exposing them would hinder future discussions between low-level officials and their superiors – claims the court rejected.

Charles points out that the privilege the government was claiming as justification for withholding the documents can easily be preserved.

“There are court mechanisms available to us to protect these documents,” says Charles. “And the court ruled in its order that these documents will be [for] ‘attorney’s eyes only.’ Which they could have been designated from the beginning.”

He adds that documents like those requested in this lawsuit typically are exchanged without argument in most litigation.

Charles says once the documents they’ve been fighting for are turned over, the case will be able to move forward.

“We’ll be able to identify witnesses, we will be able to strengthen our claims in this case, and we’ll actually be able to rely upon the evidence that we find in a trial, which is likely to happen in the near future,” says Charles.

Comment via Facebook

Corrections: If you are aware of an inaccuracy or would like to report a correction, we would like to know about it. Please consider sending an email to corrections@publishedreporter.com and cite any sources if available. Thank you. (Policy)