Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 283

ORDER denying Defendants' 238 Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction. The status quo shall remain steady as she goes, and the preliminary injunction shall remain in full force and effect nationwide. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

RYAN KARNOSKI,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CASE NO. C17-1297-MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay the Preliminary
Injunction Pending Appeal. (Dkt. No. 238.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Responses (Dkt.
Nos. 250, 257), the Reply (Dkt. No. 261), the Jurisdictional Briefing (Dkt. Nos. 275, 276, 277)
and all related papers, the Court DENIES the Motion.
Background
On December 11, 2017, the Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring
Defendants from “taking any action relative to transgender individuals that is inconsistent with
the status quo” that existed prior to President Trump’s July 26, 2017 announcement” of a policy

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 1

1

excluding transgender people from serving openly in the military (the “Ban”). (Dkt. No. 103 at

2

23.)

3

On March 23, 2018, Defendants released an Implementation Plan and a 2018

4

Memorandum which purported to “revoke” the 2017 Memorandum and replace it with a “new

5

policy” that does not mandate a “categorical prohibition on transgender service members,” but

6

rather targets those who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. (Dkt. No. 226 at 3-7; see

7

also Dkt. No. 224, Exs. 1, 3.)

8
9

On April 13, 2018, the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs and the
State of Washington, and ordered the preliminary injunction to remain in effect. (See Dkt. No.

10

233.) In so doing, the Court rejected Defendants’ claim that the subsequent Implementation Plan

11

and 2018 Memorandum represented a “new policy.” (Id. at 12.) Instead, the Court found that

12

the Implementation Plan and 2018 Memorandum “threaten the very same violations that caused

13

it and others to enjoin the Ban in the first place.” (Id.)

14

On April 30, 2018, Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. (See Dkt.

15

No. 236.) On the same day, Defendants filed this motion requesting an expedited ruling no later

16

than May 4, 2018. (Dkt. No. 238.) After the Court declined to issue an expedited ruling (Dkt.

17

No. 240), Defendants filed a separate Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

18

See Karnoski v. Trump, No. 18-35347, Dkt. No. 3 (9th Cir. May 4, 2018). The Ninth Circuit has

19

yet to issue a ruling.

20
21
22
23

Discussion
I.

Jurisdiction
While the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) allows the Court “to issue further orders with respect to an

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 2

1

injunction, even pending appeal, in order to preserve the status quo or ensure compliance with its

2

earlier orders.” Doe v. Trump, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (citing Nat. Res. Def.

3

Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001)). The Court’s

4

exercise of jurisdiction may not “adjudicate anew the merits of the case” nor “materially alter the

5

status of the case on appeal.” Southwest Marine, 242 F.3d at 1166.

6
7

II.

Motion to Stay
A stay pending appeal “is an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and

8

judicial review.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (internal quotation marks and

9

citation omitted). In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court considers: (1) whether

10

Defendants have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether

11

Defendants will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure

12

Plaintiffs and Washington; and (4) whether the public interest supports a stay. Id. at 434.

13

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

14

The Court finds that Defendants have not made a “strong showing” that they are likely to

15

succeed on the merits of their appeal.

16

First, each of the arguments raised by Defendants already has been considered and

17

rejected by the Court, and Defendants have done nothing to remedy the constitutional violations

18

that supported entry of a preliminary injunction in the first instance. Instead, Defendants

19

attempt, once again, to characterize the Implementation Plan and 2018 Memorandum as a “new

20

and different” policy, distinct from the one this Court and others enjoined. (See Dkt. No. 261 at

21

3.) The Court was not persuaded by this argument before, and it is not persuaded now.

22
23

Second, while Defendants claim—without explanation—that “the Ninth Circuit and/or
this Court ultimately . . . are highly likely to conclude that significant deference is appropriate”

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 3

1

(Dkt. No. 238 at 5), whether any deference is due remains unresolved. (See Dkt. No. 233 at

2

24-27.) Defendants bear the burden of providing a “genuine” justification for the Ban. To

3

withstand judicial scrutiny, that justification must “describe actual state purposes, not

4

rationalizations” and must not be “hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.”

5

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533, 535-36 (1996); see also Sessions v.

6

Morales-Santana, 137 S.Ct. 1678, 1696-97 (2012). To date, Defendants have steadfastly refused

7

to put before the Court evidence of any justification that predates this litigation. (See Dkt. No.

8

211.)

9

Finally, the Court notes that the Ban currently is enjoined by four separate courts. See

10

Doe 1 v. Trump, 275 F. Supp. 3d 167 (D.D.C. 2017); Stone v. Trump, 280 F. Supp. 3d 747 (D.

11

Md. 2017); Stockman v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1799-JGB-KK, Dkt. No. 79 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22,

12

2017). As a practical matter, Defendants face the challenge of convincing each of these courts to

13

lift their injunctions before they may implement the Ban.

14

B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

15

The Court finds that Defendants have not shown that they will be irreparably harmed

16

without a stay. Defendants contend that unless stayed, the injunction “will irreparably harm the

17

government (and the public) by compelling the military to adhere to a policy it has concluded

18

poses substantial risks.” (Dkt. No. 238 at 2.) In particular, Defendants contend that allowing

19

transgender people to serve openly—as they have for nearly two years—threatens to “undermine

20

readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military that is not

21

conducive to military effectiveness and lethality.” (Id. at 3.)

22
23

Since the preliminary injunction has been in effect, the Senate Committee on Armed
Services has heard testimony from high-ranking military officials on the effect of open service

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 4

1

by transgender people. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley testified that he “monitor[s]

2

very closely” the situation and had received “precisely zero” reports of problems related to unit

3

cohesion, discipline, and morale. (Dkt. No. 255, Ex. 14 at 6.) Chief of Naval Operations

4

Admiral John Richardson testified that he, too, had received no negative reports, and that in his

5

experience, “[i]t’s steady as she goes.” (Dkt. No. 255, Ex. 15.) As this testimony makes clear,

6

Defendants’ hypothetical and conclusory claims are unsupported by evidence and do not

7

establish a likelihood of irreparable harm.

8

C. Injury to Plaintiffs and Washington and Impact on Public Interest

9

Having found that Defendants have not established either a likelihood of success on the

10

merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a stay, the Court need not reach these remaining

11

factors. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d at 1164. However, the Court also finds that these

12

factors do not support entry of a stay.

13

The Court already found that Plaintiffs and Washington are likely to suffer irreparable

14

injury absent a preliminary injunction, and for the same reasons, will be injured by a stay. (See

15

Dkt. No. 103 at 20-21.) Further, maintaining the injunction pending appeal advances the

16

public’s interest in a strong national defense, as it allows skilled and qualified service members

17

to continue to serve their country.

18

D. Scope of the Preliminary Injunction

19

The Court declines to stay the preliminary injunction insofar as it grants nationwide

20

relief. While Defendants contend that the injunction should be limited to the nine Individual

21

Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 238 at 2), the Court disagrees. The scope of injunctive relief is to be

22

“dictated by the extent of the violation established.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 5

1

(1979). The Ban, like the Constitution, would apply nationwide. Accordingly, a nationwide

2

injunction is appropriate.

3

Conclusion

4

Because Defendants have not established that a stay of the preliminary injunction is

5

appropriate, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion. The status quo shall remain “steady as she

6

goes,” and the preliminary injunction shall remain in full force and effect nationwide.

7

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

8

Dated June 15, 2018.

9
10
11

A
The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Court Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - 6