📰 6 sources covering this story

Trump asks SCOTUS to allow immediate firing of 29 trans military service members

First covered 4 days ago · latest take 43 mins ago. Compare how each outlet is covering it — and rate the sources you trust.

Trump asks SCOTUS to allow immediate firing of 29 trans military service members
ABC News
ABC News43 mins ago
Trump asks SCOTUS to allow immediate firing of 29 trans military service members
President Donald Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court to allow immediate firing of 29 active-duty transgender military service members.
Trump Admin Asks SCOTUS To Weigh Military Restrictions On ‘Trans’ Troops
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to consider the legality of its policy effectively barring trans-identifying individuals from serving in the military. In its petition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the high court to determine whether the War Department’s rule that “generally
The Hill
The Hill2 days ago
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow military’s transgender ban
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow the Pentagon to enforce a ban on transgender troops serving in the military, rocketing the issue up to the high court for a second time.   The petition asks the justices to weigh whether the ban is constitutional and reverse an appeals court decision that bl
CNN
CNN2 days ago
Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold military’s ban on transgender service members
Trump asks Supreme Court to uphold military’s ban on transgender service members  CNN
NYT Politics
NYT Politics3 days ago
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Ban on Transgender Troops
President Trump issued an executive order barring transgender service members from the military as part of a broader attack on transgender rights.
Reason
Reason🏁 first to report4 days ago
Court Upholds N.Y. Law Mandating Platforms Post Terms of Service and Report How Content Moderation Policies Have Been Enforced
From Judge John Cronan (S.D.N.Y.) today in X Corp. v. James: Businesses might not always want to share every detail…