In an indication that the Trump administration's attempt to mislead the federal courts over the real reasons for adopting discriminatory policies hurt American citizens as well as immigrants, a second federal district court judge, Marvin J. Garbis of Maryland, ruled in effect that Trump's claimed reason for banning transgender troops from serving in the military was not credible.

As reported in the Washington Post on November 22, Trump had originally claimed that he had adopted that policy "after consultation with my Generals and military experts".

Judge Garbis, a Republican, in effect, determined that this claim was a lie and that no such review had ever taken place. He wrote in his decision:

"A capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy changes."

Does this just happen to remind any readers of the way that Trump's Muslim entry ban order was issued and then defended in court by the Trump administration?

Just as an overwhelming Fourth Circuit en banc majority ruled, in effect, that Trump was not telling the truth to the Court when his DOJ lawyers claimed that his Muslim ban order was based on national security rather than religious bigotry, federal judges are also now ruling, in effect, that the administration is trying to mislead the courts about the reasons for Trump's transgender military ban.

For the full story, see: Washington Post, November 22

In transgender ruling, another judge finds Trump credibility gap

(Sorry, I do not have a link. Please go to Google to access.)

See also, Constitution Center:

Judge issues new ruling against military transgender ban


https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ransgender-ban

Since this is a blog about immigrant rights, not LBGT rights, how is this story relevant to immigration law issues? The answer is simple.

When the government engages in an abuse of power affecting immigrants, such as presenting clearly false policy justifications (which, if done by a private litigant, might well amount to a fraud upon the court) in the Muslim entry ban litigation, then it may also be likely to do the same thing when the rights of American citizens belonging to a targeted group, in this case transgender US soldiers, are at stake.

If, as Americans, we want to preserve our own rights and freedoms, we must also protect the rights of immigrants from abuse by government-sponsored policies of hatred and discrimination, including attempts to deceive the courts.

With that thought, I wish all Immigration Daily readers a Happy Thanksgiving holiday.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
algaselex@gmail.com