Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BROCK STONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States, et
al.,

Hon. George L. Russell, III

Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING
Defendants respectfully request a stay of the Court’s preliminary injunction, pending
the resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 120,
and if the Court denies that motion, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and any further proceedings before the Supreme Court. Although the Court’s present
injunction applies exclusively to the now rescinded Presidential Memorandum of August 25,
2017, see ECF No. 84, the Government requests a stay of that injunction out of an abundance
of caution to ensure that the Supreme Court’s order of January 22, 2019, see ECF No. 232, has
full effect and the Department of Defense may begin implementing the policy announced by
former Secretary of Defense James Mattis on March 23, 2018.
In their Response to Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority, Plaintiffs
concede that “it would be appropriate for this Court to stay the nationwide effect of its
injunction pending appeal” but believe that the “injunction should remain in effect with
respect to a small number of individual plaintiffs who would suffer severe and immediate
harm.” Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Notice of Suppl. Authority at 2, ECF No. 233. Thus, the parties

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 8

disagree solely as to whether only the nationwide aspects of the Court’s injunction must be
stayed or the injunction must be stayed in its entirety. Because the Supreme Court’s order
granted Defendants’ stay request in full and stayed the Karnoski and Stockman injunctions in
their entirety, a similar stay of this Court’s preliminary injunction, in its entirety, is required
here.1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
Plaintiffs filed this action on August 28, 2017, raising constitutional challenges to the
President’s 2017 Memorandum concerning military service by transgender individuals.
Compl., ECF No. 1. Similar suits were filed in the District of Columbia, the Western District
of Washington, and the Central District of California. See Doe v. Shanahan, No. 17-cv-1597
(D.D.C. filed Aug. 9, 2017); Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297 (W.D. Wash. filed Aug. 28,
2017); Stockman v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1799 (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 5, 2017).
On November 21, 2017, this Court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction,
enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing certain “policies and directives
encompassed in President Trump’s Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, dated August 25, 2017, and entitled ‘Military Service by
Transgender Individuals[.]’” ECF No. 84. The district courts in Doe, Karnoski, and Stockman
similarly issued nationwide preliminary injunctions enjoining Defendants from enforcing or
implementing the Presidential Memorandum. Doe v. Shanahan, No. 17-cv-1597 (D.D.C.), ECF
No. 60; Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297 (W.D. Wash.), ECF No. 103; Stockman v. Trump,
No. 17-cv-1799 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 79. In March 2018, the Government informed the
1

In light of the Supreme Court’s order, the Government requests a ruling on its stay request
as expeditiously as possible.
2

The background regarding the creation of the military’s new policy is set forth in Defendants’
Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. See Defs.’ Mot. 2–8, ECF No. 120.
2

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 8

Court that the President had issued a new memorandum, which revoked his 2017
memorandum (and any similar directive) and allowed the military to adopt Secretary Mattis’s
proposed policy. See Defs.’ Notice, ECF No. 119; see also Defs.’ Mot. to Dissolve the Prelim.
Inj., ECF No. 120. In light of that new policy, on March 23, 2018, the Government moved
to dissolve the November 2017 injunction. Defs.’ Mot. to Dissolve the Prelim. Inj., ECF No.
120. The Government’s motion remains pending before this Court.
In March 2018, the Government also moved to dissolve the three nationwide
injunctions issued in the related litigation. Doe v. Shanahan, No. 17-cv-1597 (D.D.C.), ECF
No. 96; Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297 (W.D. Wash.), ECF No. 215; Stockman v. Trump,
No. 17-cv-1799 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 82. In each instance the district court denied the
government’s motion and declined to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Doe v. Shanahan,
No. 17-cv-1597 (D.D.C.), ECF No. 157; Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297 (W.D. Wash.),
ECF No. 233; Stockman v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1799 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 124. In each instance
the Government appealed. See Doe v. Shanahan, No. 18-cv-5257 (D.C. Cir.); Karnoski v. Trump,
No. 18-35347 (9th Cir.); Stockman v. Trump, No. 18-56539 (9th Cir.). And in each instance the
Government further sought a stay of the district court injunctions pending appeal. Doe v.
Shanahan, No. 17-cv-1597 (D.D.C.), ECF No. 183; Karnoski v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1297 (W.D.
Wash.), ECF No. 238; Stockman v. Trump, No. 17-cv-1799 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 130.
On January 4, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district
court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction in Doe v. Shanahan,
vacated the preliminary injunction, and denied the Government’s stay request as moot. See
ECF No. 230. On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the Government’s request
for a complete stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunctions in both Karnoski v. Trump and
Stockman v. Trump pending the Government’s Ninth Circuit appeal and disposition of the
3

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 8

Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. See ECF No. 232. Among
the related cases, this Court’s nationwide preliminary injunction is the only injunction that has
not been vacated or stayed. However, the Supreme Court’s action is binding here and must
result in a stay of this Court’s preliminary injunction, in its entirety, pending the resolution of
Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, and if the Court denies that
motion, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and any further
proceedings before the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENT
Because a preliminary injunction and stay are both forms of preliminary equitable
relief, courts in the Fourth Circuit have applied the four factor test established in Real Truth
About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), derived from the Supreme Court’s
decision in Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), when considering a stay of an injunction.
See Rose v. Logan, 13-3592, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98404, 2014 WL 3616380 (D. Md. July 21,
2014); Doe v. Cooper, No. 13-711, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192534, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 2,
2016). The standard in Real Truth requires the movant to establish the following factors: “[1]
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an
injunction is in the public interest.” 575 F.3d at 346.
Even when courts enter injunctions, those same courts regularly find cause to stay
their own rulings entering, dissolving, or modifying injunctions. See, e.g., Wash. Metro. Area
Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 842 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (holding that district
court did not abuse its discretion by entering permanent injunction and then staying it pending
appeal); Thiry v. Carlson, 891 F. Supp. 563, 567 (D. Kan. 1995) (granting stay pending appeal
of court’s own order dissolving preliminary injunction). This holds with particular force when
4

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 5 of 8

the Supreme Court has intervened to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction. See Int'l Refugee
Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F.3d 233, 274 (4th Cir. 2018) (“In light of the Supreme Court’s
order staying this injunction pending disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of
certiorari, if such writ is sought, we stay our decision today pending the Supreme Court's
decision.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662,
702 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In light of the Supreme Court’s order staying this injunction pending
disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought, we stay
our decision today pending Supreme Court review.”) (internal quotations and citation
omitted).
Here, the Supreme Court has acted on the Government’s applications in two of the
related cases by staying similar injunctions, in their entirety, issued in response to the same
legal challenges to the same Department of Defense policies, and that action is binding on this
Court. See Mem. Op. of November 30, 2018, ECF No. 227 at 4 n.7 (noting that the district
courts in Doe, Karnoski, and Stockman issued injunctions similar to this Court’s November 21,
2017 preliminary injunction barring implementation of the same challenged policy); Pls.’
Notice of Suppl. Authority, ECF No. 143 (acknowledging that the Stone Plaintiffs bring the
same constitutional challenges to the same policies as the Doe and Karnoski Plaintiffs); Pls.’
Notice of Suppl. Authority, ECF No. 218 (acknowledging that the Stone Plaintiffs bring the
same constitutional challenges to the same policies as the Stockman Plaintiffs). In doing so,
the Supreme Court considered the same factors the district court must consider here and
determined that a stay of the preliminary injunctions issued in Karnoski and Stockman was
warranted. The Supreme Court’s application of those stay factors to the present injunction is
thus binding here and must result in a stay of this Court’s preliminary injunction pending the
resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 120, and
5

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 6 of 8

if the Court denies that motion, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit and any further proceedings before the Supreme Court. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S.
203, 237 (1997) (“We reaffirm that ‘[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a
case…[lower courts] should follow the case which directly controls[.]”) (quoting Rodriguez de
Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)).
Plaintiffs acknowledge that “in light of the Supreme Court’s Order, it would be
appropriate for this Court to stay the nationwide effect of its injunction pending appeal” but
believe that the “injunction should remain in effect with respect to a small number of
individual plaintiffs who would suffer severe and immediate harm.” Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’
Notice of Suppl. Authority at 2, ECF No. 233. However, the Supreme Court’s order granted
Defendants’ stay request in full and stayed the Karnoski and Stockman injunctions in their
entirety. Thus, a similar stay of this Court’s preliminary injunction, in its entirety, is required
here.
Moreover, Plaintiffs err in contending that the Supreme Court’s order leaves this Court
room to “exercis[e] its equitable discretion” to stay only the nationwide aspect of the
injunction. Id. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ arguments in the Supreme Court “centered
on the nationwide effects” of the injunctions at issue. Id. But Defendants’ stay applications
in the Supreme Court asked the Court to “stay [each] injunction in its entirety,” Karnoski Stay
Appl. at 1, No. 18-676 (S. Ct. 2018) and requested a stay of “the nationwide scope of [each]
injunction” only in the alternative to a full stay, id. at 2; see id. at 3 (“At a minimum, the Court
should stay the nationwide scope of the injunction . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. at 40
(same). Plaintiffs also contend that, if the injunction in this case is stayed in its entirety, the
individual plaintiffs will “suffer severe and immediate harm.” Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Notice of
Suppl. Authority at 2, ECF No. 233. But the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court likewise argued
6

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 7 of 8

that a full stay would cause the individual plaintiffs to “suffer serious irreparable
injury.” Karnoski Stay Appl. Opp’n at 30, No. 18A-625 (S. Ct. 2018). And in applying the
stay factors, the Supreme Court nevertheless determined that a full stay of each injunction was
warranted. The Supreme Court’s order thus leaves no room for a different result here.
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING
In light of the Supreme Court’s January 22, 2019 order and the fact that this Court’s
nationwide injunction is the only remaining injunction among the related cases, Defendants
respectfully request an expedited ruling on this motion.
CONCLUSION
The Government respectfully requests that this Court stay the preliminary injunction,
in its entirety, pending the resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary
Injunction, ECF No. 120, and if the Court denies that motion, pending an appeal to the Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and any further proceedings before the Supreme Court.

January 24, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JOHN R. GRIFFITHS
Branch Director
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Director
/s/Courtney D. Enlow
COURTNEY D. ENLOW
ANDREW E. CARMICHAEL
Trial Attorneys
7

 Case 1:17-cv-02459-GLR Document 234 Filed 01/24/19 Page 8 of 8

United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Tel: (202) 616-8467
Email: courtney.d.enlow@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

8