Trump asks Supreme Court to allow ban on transgender members of the military to take effect, for now

News

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow ban on transgender members of the military to take effect, for now

2025-04-24 23:50 Last Updated At：04-25 00:01

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow enforcement of a ban on transgender people in the military, while legal challenges proceed.

Without an order from the nation's highest court, the ban could not take effect for many months, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, “a period far too long for the military to be forced to maintain a policy that it has determined, in its professional judgment, to be contrary to military readiness and the nation’s interests.”

The high court filing follows a brief order from a federal appeals court that kept in place a court order blocking the policy nationwide.

At the least, Sauer wrote, the court should allow the ban to take effect nationwide, except for the seven service members and one aspiring member of the military who sued.

The court gave lawyers for the service members challenging the ban a week to respond.

Just after beginning his second term in January, Trump moved aggressively to roll back the rights of transgender people. Among the Republican president's actions was an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies transgender people from military service.

But in March, U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma, Washington, ruled for several long-serving transgender military members who say that the ban is insulting and discriminatory and that their firing would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations.

The Trump administration offered no explanation as to why transgender troops, who have been able to serve openly over the past four years with no evidence of problems, should suddenly be banned, Settle wrote. The judge is an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush and is a former captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps.

In 2016, during Barack Obama’s presidency, a Defense Department policy permitted transgender people to serve openly in the military. During Trump’s first term in the White House, the Republican issued a directive to ban transgender service members, with an exception for some of those who had already started transitioning under more lenient rules that were in effect during Obama's Democratic administration.

The Supreme Court allowed that ban to take effect. President Joe Biden, a Democrat, scrapped it when he took office.

The rules the Defense Department wants to enforce contain no exceptions.

Sauer said the policy during Trump's first term and the one that has been blocked are “materially indistinguishable.”

Thousands of transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

The policy also has been blocked by a federal judge in the nation’s capital, but that ruling has been temporarily halted by a federal appeals court, which heard arguments on Tuesday. The three-judge panel, which includes two judges appointed by Trump during his first term, appeared to be in favor of the administration's position.

In a more limited ruling, a judge in New Jersey also has barred the Air Force from removing two transgender men, saying they showed their separation would cause lasting damage to their careers and reputations that no monetary settlement could repair.

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Thousands of nurses go on strike at several major New York City hospitals

NEW YORK (AP) — Thousands of nurses in three hospital systems in New York City went on strike Monday after negotiations through the weekend failed to yield breakthroughs in their contract disputes.

The strike was taking place at The Mount Sinai Hospital and two of its satellite campuses, with picket lines forming. The other affected hospitals are NewYork-Presbyterian and Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx.

About 15,000 nurses are involved in the strike, according to New York State Nurses Association.

“After months of bargaining, management refused to make meaningful progress on core issues that nurses have been fighting for: safe staffing for patients, healthcare benefits for nurses, and workplace violence protections,” the union said in a statement issued Monday. “Management at the richest hospitals in New York City are threatening to discontinue or radically cut nurses’ health benefits.”

The strike, which comes during a severe flu season, could potentially force the hospitals to transfer patients, cancel procedures or divert ambulances. It could also put a strain on city hospitals not involved in the contract dispute, as patients avoid the medical centers hit by the strike.

The hospitals involved have been hiring temporary nurses to try and fill the labor gap during the walkout, and said in a statement during negotiations that they would “do whatever is necessary to minimize disruptions.” Montefiore posted a message assuring patients that appointments would be kept.

“NYSNA’s leaders continue to double down on their $3.6 billion in reckless demands, including nearly 40% wage increases, and their troubling proposals like demanding that a nurse not be terminated if found to be compromised by drugs or alcohol while on the job," Montefiore spokesperson Joe Solmonese said Monday after the strike had started. "We remain resolute in our commitment to providing safe and seamless care, regardless of how long the strike may last.”

New York-Presbyterian accused the union of staging a strike to “create disruption,” but said in a statement that it has taken steps to ensure patients receive the care they need.

"We’re ready to keep negotiating a fair and reasonable contract that reflects our respect for our nurses and the critical role they play, and also recognizes the challenging realities of today’s healthcare environment,” the statement said.

The work stoppage is occurring at multiple hospitals simultaneously, but each medical center is negotiating with the union independently. Several other hospitals across the city and in its suburbs reached deals in recent days to avert a possible strike.

The nurses’ demands vary by hospital, but the major issues include staffing levels and workplace safety. The union says hospitals have given nurses unmanageable workloads.

Nurses also want better security measures in the workplace, citing incidents like a an incident last week, when a man with a sharp object barricaded himself in a Brooklyn hospital room and was then killed by police.

The union also wants limitations on hospitals’ use of artificial intelligence.

The nonprofit hospitals involved in the negotiations say they’ve been working to improve staffing levels, but say the union’s demands overall are too costly.

Nurses voted to authorize the strike last month.

Both New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Zohran Mamdani had expressed concern about the possibility of the strike. As the strike deadline neared, Mamdani urged both sides to keep negotiating and reach a deal that “both honors our nurses and keeps our hospitals open.”

“Our nurses kept this city alive through its hardest moments. Their value is not negotiable,” Mamdani said.

State Attorney General Letitia James voiced similar support, saying "nurses put their lives on the line every day to keep New Yorkers healthy. They should never be forced to choose between their own safety, their patients’ well-being, and a fair contract.”

The last major nursing strike in the city was only three years ago, in 2023. That work stoppage, at Mount Sinai and Montefiore, was short, lasting three days. It resulted in a deal raising pay 19% over three years at those hospitals.

It also led to promised staffing improvements, though the union and hospitals now disagree about how much progress has been made, or whether the hospitals are retreating from staffing guarantees.