| dbo:abstract
|
- El cas Jane Doe contra Trump (1.17-cv-01597-CKK) va ser una demanda presentada el 9 d'agost de 2017 i decidida el 4 de gener de 2019 en el Tribunal de Districte dels Estats Units per al Districte de Columbia. La demanda buscava bloquejar a Donald Trump i a alts funcionaris del Pentàgon perquè no implementessin la proposta de prohibició del servei militar per als transsexualsemparant-se en les clàusules d'igualtat de protecció i la del degut procés de la Cinquena Esmena. El tribunal va dictaminar que la política de l'administració Trump no hauria de ser bloquejada. No obstant això, la política de l'administració Trump va continuar bloquejada a causa de tres requeriments preliminars en contra seva que no formaven part d'aquesta demanda i que es van mantenir en vigor a partir de la conclusió de la demanda el 4 de gener de 2019. La demanda va ser presentada en nom de cinc membres anònims del servei transsexual per dues importants organitzacions de drets LGBT, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) i el Centre Nacional per als Drets de les Lesbianes (National Center for Lesbian Rights), que van presentar una petició en el Tribunal de Districte dels Estats Units per al Districte de Columbia. La demanda va ser esmenada per a afegir un demandant anònim més i dos demandants nomenats a la fi d'agost de 2017. (ca)
- Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019. The suit was filed on the behalf of five anonymous transgender service members by two major LGBT-rights organizations, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit was amended to add one more anonymous plaintiff and two named plaintiffs in late August 2017. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 40980 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:author
|
- Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (en)
|
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:defendant
| |
| dbp:judge
| |
| dbp:name
|
- Jane Doe, et al v. Trump, et al (en)
|
| dbp:plaintiff
|
- (en)
- Dylan Kohere (en)
- Jane Doe 1 (en)
- Jane Doe 2 (en)
- Jane Doe 3 (en)
- Jane Doe 4 (en)
- Jane Doe 5 (en)
- John Doe 1 (en)
- Regan V. Kibby (en)
|
| dbp:source
|
- 0001-12-11 (xsd:gMonthDay)
- Memorandum Opinion, Jane Doe v. Trump . (en)
|
| dbp:text
|
- Although they hint in their most recent pleading that a new policy proposal is forthcoming in the next few weeks, Defendants fail to provide the Court with any insight at all into what the policy might be. The Court is left to speculate. On the one hand, to the extent the policy Defendants foresee adopting in the future is a ban on accessions—which the Court has already concluded is likely to be proven unconstitutional—this is clearly not a reason to stay the injunction in this case. On the other hand, as the Court has already explained, there is no reason to conclude on the present record that Defendants intend to implement any sort of policy allowing for the accession of transgender individuals. Defendants have never given the Court any reason to conclude that this would be the case. (en)
- The Court holds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim. As a form of government action that classifies people based on their gender identity, and disfavors a class of historically persecuted and politically powerless individuals, the President's directives are subject to a fairly searching form of scrutiny. Plaintiffs claim that the President's directives cannot survive such scrutiny because they are not genuinely based on legitimate concerns regarding military effectiveness or budget constraints, but are instead driven by a desire to express disapproval of transgender people generally. The Court finds that a number of factors—including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President's announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself—strongly suggest that Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- El cas Jane Doe contra Trump (1.17-cv-01597-CKK) va ser una demanda presentada el 9 d'agost de 2017 i decidida el 4 de gener de 2019 en el Tribunal de Districte dels Estats Units per al Districte de Columbia. La demanda buscava bloquejar a Donald Trump i a alts funcionaris del Pentàgon perquè no implementessin la proposta de prohibició del servei militar per als transsexualsemparant-se en les clàusules d'igualtat de protecció i la del degut procés de la Cinquena Esmena. El tribunal va dictaminar que la política de l'administració Trump no hauria de ser bloquejada. No obstant això, la política de l'administració Trump va continuar bloquejada a causa de tres requeriments preliminars en contra seva que no formaven part d'aquesta demanda i que es van mantenir en vigor a partir de la conclusió (ca)
- Jane Doe v. Trump (1:17-cv-01597-CKK) was a lawsuit filed on August 9, 2017 and decided January 4, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit sought to block Donald Trump and top Pentagon officials from implementing the proposed ban on military service for transgender people under the auspices of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled that the Trump administration's policy should not be blocked. Nonetheless, the Trump administration's policy continued to be blocked due to three preliminary injunctions against it that were not part of this lawsuit and which remained in effect as of the lawsuit's conclusion on January 4, 2019. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Doe contra Trump (ca)
- Doe v. Trump (2017) (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
