JUST IN: Federal judge hearing the trans military ban case in DC dismisses Trump as a defendant "to avoid unnecessary constitutional confrontations." Notes, though, that "Plaintiffs—if successful—can still obtain all of the relief that they seek." 
For non-lawyers, this is, for the most part, an in-the-weeds ruling that doesn't have much of an effect on things. It's just about whether Trump himself should be a named defendant in the case. Judge said no here.
For lawyers and other #lawdork folks, though, there's some interesting separation of powers discussion here! Opinion: documentcloud.org/documents/4637… / Order: documentcloud.org/documents/4637…
Breaking: Judge Kollar-Kotelly keeps injunction in place against Trump's admin efforts to implement a trans military ban, denies motion to dismiss. (The move immediately followed a decision dismissing Trump himself from the case.)
(The newest effort at a trans military ban already was enjoined, so this changes nothing on the ground.)
Kollar-Kotelly: "In sum, it is Defendants’ view that they have preempted this lawsuit by drafting and issuing the Panel Report, the Mattis Implementation Plan, and the 2018 Presidential Memorandum. The Court disagrees." Opinion: documentcloud.org/documents/4637…
In the latest attempt at banning trans people from serving in the military, those currently serving are exempted from the ban. DOJ then argues those currently serving have no standing to sue. Judge says that is not right, for several reasons.
DOJ even tried to argue that those NOT serving lack standing — b/c they could join the military now b/c the policy in enjoined. CKK: "This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Court’s standing analysis."
What about the transgender plaintiff who is working with medical professionals on a treatment plan for transition currently? CKK is getting frustrated by time she gets to this one.
DOJ also argued that the "Mattis Implementation Plan" made the original lawsuit against the trans military ban moot. CKK: Again, nope.
"Tolerating a person with a certain characteristic only on the condition that they renounce that characteristic is the same as not tolerating them at all." - Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
She is right. The discussion above did "likely" make this clear.
