Trump seems incapable of a win in any courtrooms staffed by Democrat-appointed judges, which begs the question: Are they ruling objectively or politically?
“I think it's something that we ought to be concerned about as a country, where the United States of America voted [in November] very clearly to be opposed to the Biden agenda and the leftward tilt of this nation,” Jeremy Dys, senior counsel with First Liberty Institute, said on Washington Watch Wednesday.
Thus far, judges have ruled that the Trump administration cannot fire government employees in an effort to reduce federal spending, that he can’t deport illegal immigrants now confirmed by El Salvadoran officials to be members of known criminal gangs, and that he can’t ban transgender individuals from military service.
Dys told show host Jody Hice that Americans clearly voted for “a reordering of gender, especially within the military, whose job it is to go break things and kill our enemies.”
“Instead, the social engineering that has been out there for so long ought to be left to the experts of the Department of Defense through this president and not through the judicial pen,” Dys argued.
Trump on Jan. 27 issued an executive order stating that “gender identity divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for miliary service.”
The order (quoted below in part) focused on the ability of any potential enlistments to achieve readiness:
“Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life. A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was instructed to respond accordingly.
Her own readiness assessment
|
The Pentagon will appeal Judge Reyes' decision to block the Trump administration’s ban on transgender troops, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday night. "We are appealing this decision, and we will win," Hegseth posted on X. More details… |
Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump’s executive order banning transgenders from the military.
Justice Department lawyers had argued that the president has broad authority to determine who can serve in the military. But Reyes rejected that argument in her ruling, declaring that the “military is stronger and our nation is safer” because “marginalized persons” have been included in the ranks. The judge, however, balked at the “military readiness” contention.
“The President has the power – indeed the obligation – to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons,” CNN reported.
Reyes wrote that Trump’s executive order banning transgender military service "at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment” – which states:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
While Dys considers Reyes' statement ambiguous, he also sees it as a reminder of the impact that comes from the judicial appointment power of presidents.
“Ultimately, we're going to find out whether the judges above her – or perhaps the justices above her – agree with that analysis. But this is a good reminder for all of us that elections have consequences. Let’s remember the importance of who nominates judges. So many of the key issues of our day are settled so often within our courts right now,” he noted.
Representative Glenn Grothman (R-Wisconsin) agreed.
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden are gone from the White House, but their judges continue on,” Grothman told Hice. “It's very frustrating. They're reaching outlandish decisions. They're trying to keep this criminal element [of illegal immigrants] from leaving this country. They're [also] trying to force the government to accept transgenders in the military, which is preposterous.”
Through their judicial appointments, Obama and Biden “still have so much influence,” Grothman said, “particularly when you can go around the country and pick your judge or pick your forum.”
Next steps for Trump trans ban
Reyes’ ruling leaves the future of Trump’s transgender ban unclear. “There'll be more lawyering that'll be done, more arguments will be made, more briefs will be written,” said Dys. “Perhaps we'll come out of it on the other end with some sense of sanity.”
According to the First Liberty attorney, the only judicial certainty through January of 2029 is that future judicial appointments will act as a counterbalance to those who are blocking the path for which Americans voted in November of 2024.
Trump appointees “rather than trying to engineer something socially through a Constitution that is very clear as to what rights are articulated to the government and to the people, we're going to see judges who are going to look at actual language of statutes and see that words actually have meaning – including words like 'man' and 'woman' and 'male' and 'female,'” Dys said.
