"On the record before the court, there is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effective on the military at all", she wrote in the ruling. USA Today reports that Mattis had already stalled the recruit of new transgender military members at the time. The judge, however, did not rule on the support of the medical treatment of transgender individuals already working within the army.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017.... About five years after lifting the ban on the open service of gay and lesbian Americans, the Department of Defense announced in 2016 that transgender people could serve openly as well.
"As far as the court is aware at this preliminary stage, all of the reasons proffered by the president for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself", she added, referring to the military's 2016 study done during the Obama administration that led to allowing open service by transgender troops. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and can not be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.
The Pentagon has not released data on the number of transgender people now serving, but a Rand Corp. study has estimated between 1,320 and 6,630, out of 1.3 million active-duty troops. There is no definite figure for how many transgender people are now on active duty, but estimates range from about 2,500 to 15,500.
Kollar-Kotelly allowed to stand a part of the proposal that would bar health funds from being used for sex reassignment surgery.
The Trump administration may appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision, but for now, the proposed ban remains unenforceable. These directives must be executed by a date certain, and there is no reason to believe that they will not be executed.
The move has been celebrated by queer rights activists.
The judge also tackled the long-established argument that Courts traditionally give deference to the military.
"Although this ruling is very preliminary, it's significant in at least two respects", said CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "Second, it once again recognizes that the President's words (and tweets) have consequences, especially when those words are turned into official policy".