No. XX-XX In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RYAN KARNOSKI, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY B. WALL Deputy Solicitor General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General FREDERICK LIU Assistant to the Solicitor General BRINTON LUCAS Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General MARK R. FREEMAN MARLEIGH D. DOVER TARA S. MORRISSEY Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED In 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis an- nounced a new policy concerning military service by transgender individuals. Under the Mattis policy, trans- gender individuals would be permitted to serve in the military, while individuals with a history of a medical condition called gender dysphoria would be disqualified from military service unless they meet certain condi- tions. The question presented is: Whether the district court erred in preliminarily en- joining the military from implementing the Mattis pol- icy nationwide. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners (defendants-appellants below) are Don- ald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; the United States of America; James Mattis, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; and the United States Department of Defense. Respondents (plaintiffs-appellees below) are Ryan Karnoski; Cathrine Schmid, Staff Sergeant; D. L., by his next friend and mother, FKA: K. G.; Laura Garza; Human Rights Campaign Fund; Gender Justice League; Lindsey Muller, Chief Warrant Officer; Terece Lewis, Petty Officer First Class; Phillip Stephens, Petty Officer Second Class; Megan Winters, Petty Of- ficer Second Class; Jane Doe; Conner Callahan; and American Military Partner Association. Respondents also include the State of Washington, Attorney Gen- eral’s Office Civil Rights Unit (intervenor-plaintiff- appellee below). (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional provisions involved .............................................. 2 Statement: A. The military’s policies ............................................. 2 B. Procedural history ................................................... 9 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 15 I. The question presented warrants this Court’s immediate review ............................................................. 16 II. The decision below is wrong ....................................... 19 A. The Mattis policy is consistent with equal protection................................................................ 19 B. The Mattis policy does not violate respondents’ due process or First Amendment rights ............. 25 C. The nationwide injunction against the Mattis policy is vastly overbroad ..................................... 25 III. The Court should grant certiorari before judgment in all three cases ........................................................... 27 Conclusion ................................................................................... 29 Appendix A — District court order granting preliminary injunction (Dec. 11, 2017)........................... 1a Appendix B — District court order denying motion for clarification (Dec. 29, 2017) ..................... 29a Appendix C — District court order striking motion to dissolve preliminary injunction (Apr. 13, 2018) ........................................... 36a Appendix D — Notice of appeal (Apr. 30, 2018) .................. 73a Appendix E — District court order denying stay (June 15, 2018) .......................................... 75a Appendix F — Court of appeals order denying stay (July 18, 2018) ........................................... 82a Appendix G — Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments from Secretary Carter (July 28, 2015) .............................. 84a (III) IV Table of Contents—Continued: Page Appendix H — Directive-type memorandum 16-005 (June 30, 2016) .......................................... 86a Appendix I — Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments from Secretary Mattis (June 30, 2017) .............................. 96a Appendix J — Twitter statement (July 26, 2017) ............... 98a Appendix K — Presidential memorandum (Aug. 25, 2017) .......................................... 99a Appendix L — Memorandum from Secretary Mattis (Sept. 14, 2017) ........................................ 103a Appendix M — Interim guidance (Sept. 14, 2017) ............. 108a Appendix N — Department of Defense Report and Recommendations on Military Service by Transgender Persons (Feb. 2018) .............................................. 113a Appendix O — Memorandum for the President from Secretary Mattis (Feb. 22, 2018) .......... 204a Appendix P — Presidential memorandum (Mar. 23, 2018) ........................................ 210a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Board of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).............................................................. 19 Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) .................................. 25 Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) .................. 18 Doe 1 v. Trump, No. 17-5267, 2017 WL 6553389 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017) ..................................................... 11 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (2018) ......................... 25, 26 Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) ......... 17, 20, 25 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) ..................................... 26 V Cases—Continued: Page Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994) .................................................................................... 26 Meinhold v. United States Dep’t of Def., 34 F.3d 1469 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................ 26, 27 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) .................. 19, 20, 24 Stone v. Trump: 280 F. Supp. 3d 747 (D. Md. 2017) ............................. 9, 17 No. 17-2398, 2017 WL 9732004 (4th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017) .............................................. 11 Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) ......................................................... 26 Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) ...................... 25, 26 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)....................... 18 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)............. 22, 23 United States Dep’t of Def. v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993) .............................................................................. 26, 27 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .................................................................................... 20 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).............................................................. 18 Constitution, statutes, and rules: U.S. Const.: Art. III .............................................................................. 26 Amend. I .................................................. 2, 9, 10, 11, 25, 27 Amend. V ............................................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. 505(a) ....................................................................... 2 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ................................................................... 16 28 U.S.C. 2101(e) ................................................................... 16 Sup. Ct. R. 11 ......................................................................... 16 9th Cir. R. 3-3 ......................................................................... 13 VI Miscellaneous: Page Stephen M. Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice (10th ed. 2013) ..................................................................... 18 In the Supreme Court of the United States No. XX-XX DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. RYAN KARNOSKI, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT The Solicitor General, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, et al., respectfully petitions for a writ of cer- tiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. OPINIONS BELOW The order of the district court granting respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction (App., infra, 1a-28a) is not published in the Federal Supplement but is avail- able at 2017 WL 6311305. The order of the district court striking the government’s motion to dissolve the pre- liminary injunction (App., infra, 36a-72a) is not pub- lished in the Federal Supplement but is available at 2018 WL 1784464. JURISDICTION On April 13, 2018, the district court struck the gov- ernment’s motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction. (1) 2 The government filed a notice of appeal on April 30, 2018 (App., infra, 73a-74a). The court of appeals’ juris- diction rests on 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1) and 28 U.S.C. 2101(e). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED The First Amendment to the Constitution provides in