More

Obama Administration Asks Federal Appeals Court To Uphold 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

LISA LEFF   02/25/11 09:05 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — The Obama administration may have concluded that laws targeting gay Americans are presumably unconstitutional, but it still asked a federal appeals court Friday to refrain for now from striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military, court documents state.

Justice Department lawyers asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to give the Pentagon time to train troops and take other steps Congress outlined in December, when it cleared the way for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to be repealed.

The request was made in the government's opening brief challenging a Southern California trial judge who in September declared the "don't ask, don't tell" policy unconstitutional.

"This case is thus now in a different posture," Assistant Attorney General Tony West wrote for the administration. "That statute is now undergoing a repeal process subject to a more recent law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President."

The relevant question now before the 9th Circuit, West maintained, is not whether "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional, but whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to leave the policy in effect while the Pentagon works toward its repeal.

The brief was submitted in a case filed six years ago by Lob Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that argued that forcing gay service members to keep their sexual orientations secret if they did not want to be discharged violated their First Amendment rights, among others.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips agreed and issued a worldwide injunction barring enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell." The appeals court subsequently imposed a stay preventing Phillips' order from taking effect.

Gay rights and conservative activists had been eager to see what the Department of Justice, which faced a Friday deadline for filing its brief, would say just two days after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the government would no longer defend the 1996 federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages.

Holder said the decision stemmed from President Obama and his conclusions that any law that treats gay people differently is unconstitutional unless it serves a compelling governmental interest.

West did not reference the administration's new position anywhere in his 56-page filing, instead arguing that Phillips had erred, largely on procedural grounds. He also suggested that laws involving the military fall into a different category from those affecting civilians.

"Congress's judgment on matters respecting military affairs is entitled to judicial deference, and, as this court noted in granting a stay pending appeal, an immediate court-ordered end to the policy would cause substantial disruption," he said.

West noted that every other appeals court that had considered the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell," including the 9th Circuit, had let the policy stand.

Lawyers for Log Cabin Republicans have until March 28 to respond to the government's arguments.

Dan Woods, who is representing the group, said Friday's legal filing by the Justice Department represented a major change in the government's position, even though the lawyers were arguing that "don't ask, don't tell' should remain in effect for now

"The government's brief is stunning for what it does not say," Woods said. "By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the government's brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that 'don't ask, don't tell' was and is unconstitutional."

The Department of Justice previously asked the 9th Circuit to put the case on hold since the administration expects gays to be able to join and serve openly in the armed forces by the end of the year. A three-judge panel rejected that request last month, but West said that decision is not binding on the different three judges who will be assigned the broader appeal.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
SAN FRANCISCO — The Obama administration may have concluded that laws targeting gay Americans are presumably unconstitutional, but it still asked a federal appeals court Friday to refrain for no...
SAN FRANCISCO — The Obama administration may have concluded that laws targeting gay Americans are presumably unconstitutional, but it still asked a federal appeals court Friday to refrain for no...
Filed by Adam Goldberg  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 792
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alithegreat
02:03 PM on 02/26/2011
i've heard of gay curious, gay friendly, and gay hostile, but this is the first i've heard of gay schizophrenic.

is this something procedural here? i don't understand.

i'm asking sincerely, if you know what this is really about, not just how it looks, i'd appreciate the insight.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
03:03 PM on 02/28/2011
No, it's utterly inexplicable.

The headline refers to the issue as DADT. That is misleading. DADT is Clinton's DOD policy modification of a federal law, 10 USC §654, that bans gays from joining or serving in the armed forces under ANY circumstance. DADT modifies 10 USC §654 by allowing gays to serve to the extent their sexuality is not disclosed or discovered. The policy, DADT, has always controlled.

That means the law, 10 USC §654, has never actually been enforced as written.

And even though new DOD policies control, the administration is arguing on behalf of maintaining 10 USC §654, notwithstanding:

1. the administration claims to oppose the absolute ban as a matter of policy, and
2. the absolute ban is opposed by the current military leadership, and
3. the absolute ban is rejected by ~80% of voters, and
4. a federal district court judge held the ban "facially unconstitutional" and unenforceable, and
5. Congress recently determined the absolute ban was unnecessary.

It its brief, the government does not explain how maintaining the 10 USC §654 in full discriminatory legal effect advances the government's interest in eventually repealing 10 USC §654 and nullifying its discriminatory effect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alithegreat
10:23 PM on 02/28/2011
thank you, my confusion is now both complete, and vindicated. =)
photo
halfpricefaustian
Voted for Obama. Waiting for Godot.
10:53 AM on 02/26/2011
This lawsuit needs to continue. It seems that the DoJ and the military want to have the flexibility to continue some discriminatory policies using the "compelling interest" rubric. It is telling that the DoJ lawyer is trying to dissuade the court from ruling on the constitutionality of DADT itself, trying to morph that into whether or not allowing DADT to stand until the Pentagon gets around to repealing it is constitutional. Big difference. I think something rotten is going on. The courts need to rule on the constitutionality of discrimination based on sexual preference and not get sidelined by DoJ funny business.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
09:34 AM on 02/26/2011
Shall we start calling President Obama "Sybil"? He switches back and forth on gay issues more often than most people with multiple personality disorder.

Mr. President, here's an Ella Fitzgerald song that pretty much sums you up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIdvJ-EW-Y
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:45 AM on 02/26/2011
F&F
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
01:06 PM on 02/26/2011
Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
txgrandpa6
Progressive Democrat living in Texas!
03:57 PM on 02/26/2011
Great description of the President's stance on all things LGBT related. I hope that he makes up his mind soon and determines that it is in the best interest of the country to firmly stand against discrimination whether it be in the military or in the civilian sector of this nation. F&F for a great musical analogy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
05:17 PM on 02/26/2011
Amen to that! This comes off as totally schizoid.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jdaddy1951
07:13 PM on 02/26/2011
Yep, Ioan. I've decided not to react too happily to ANYTHING President Obama says in regard to gay rights. He's becoming more and more like Lucy Van Pelt, the girl who kept yanking Charlie Brown's football away just as he was about to kick it.
hopeisalive
Old enough to know better, but young enough to try
08:54 AM on 02/26/2011
Why is it that most of the time we want change to happen overnight? So many thought that when Mr. Obama was elected all of the jobs would come back, economy would get to the black and the sun would shine brighter each morning. It wasn't too long ago that the Stock Market was below 7,000 now it's above 12,000. Consumer confidence isn't the best, but it's growing. GDP is moving to the plus mark each quarter instead of sinking. I'm not saying that everything is good, just that it's getting better. If it took eight years to get into this hole, why would you expect that the hole would be filled and everything great in two? DADT needs to be implemented reasonably not in a rush. You might remember that the marines in combat areas took exception to the repeal. We need to watch to make sure that it doesn't take years to implement, but it will take time and effort by the generals.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
12:28 AM on 02/26/2011
Everybody chill.  The law has already been repealed and the military is on the fast track to implementing the repeal.  They don't wanna drag this thing out any more than anyone else.  The military likes stable policies.

What they don't want, and I don't necessarily agree so don't jump down my throat about it, is to not have the courts tell them they HAVE to.

My own hope is that the courts will find DADT unconstitutional and accept the military's current plans as a reasonable remedy consent decree.  Then we have our legislative appeal, the military has their precious timeline and the courts will make sure it actually happens.

But the president disagrees.  Okay.  End of the day, DADT is still deader n' Dillinger.

There's bigger fish.  Even just in gay rights there's bigger fish.  Let's get on that DOMA thing.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:06 AM on 02/26/2011
The gay ban is not yet repealed. The president has said he hopes it can be done by the end of the year.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:27 AM on 02/26/2011
You don't have a dog in the fight, so you don't care.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is sending bills to servicemembers involuntarily discharged under the ban demanding compensation for training and education!

Dan Choi got one.

That problem needs to be solved straightaway, through the courts, because the legislative repeal process doesn't address stuff like that, or the fact that the military continues to screw discharged servicemembers out of their benefits.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:48 AM on 02/26/2011
i dont have a dog in the fight except millions of americans are being discriminate against. if its one its all of us. i stand with the oppressed. so i fight for human rights for peiple i havent personally met, ut they are americans so their fight is my fight.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
10:13 PM on 02/26/2011
Yeah.  You're right.  I've got no dog in the gay rights fight.  Sure.  Cuz you know me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
12:23 AM on 02/26/2011
No disrespect to the civilian bloggers here.
The military isn't the civilian world. It is very structured.

What is allowable military behavior and what is legal civilian behavior are different even if you are straight. It's a different world. I imagine that the regs are being rewritten for new recruits, as existing military members understand what is expected, whether they are straight or gay.

By the regs (in my day - it could have changed) the only place a military member could legally touch another military member without permission is the elbow. Seriously. A lot of stuff needs to get rewritten and updated.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
12:37 AM on 02/26/2011
As the Commander in Chief, it's Obama's responsibility that all service members are treated fairly and justly. Arbitrary discrimination against one kind of sexual orientation is immoral and undisciplined. It's his obligation to rectify these things, not perpetuate them with specious reasoning and a plea of helplessness.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
04:36 PM on 02/26/2011
Respectfully...
Patience.
The military runs on a 'hurry up and wait' mentality.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
12:08 AM on 02/26/2011
You apologists really have an excuse for everything. If he took the opposite position of the one he did here, you'd still be lauding him for doing the right thing. Amazing.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
12:31 AM on 02/26/2011
Glenn Greenwald on the hypocrisy of Obama's apologists:

"President Obama reversed his decision about whether to release photographs of detainee abuse which two federal courts had ruled must be disclosed pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Originally, Obama announced that he would release those photos, and when he was attacked by the Kristol/Liz-Cheney-led Right for harming national security, virtually all Democrats defended him by citing the virtues of transparency.

"Yet a mere two weeks later, Obama reversed himself and announced that he would conceal the photos on the ground that their release would harm national security (invoking precisely the Kristol/Cheney argument), and most Democrats . . . then defended that position, even though it was exactly the opposite of the position they took a mere two weeks earlier (a similar incident occurred when Democrats vocally defended Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court on the ground that such trials are compelled by "the rule of law," yet now refrain from criticizing the President for "suspending" that decision and refusing to give Mohammed (and many other detainees) a trial, even though, logically, those progressives would have to see denial of such trials as a violation of the very same "rule of law" they cited to justify Mohammed's civilian trial)."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/24/bliss/index.html
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
12:32 AM on 02/26/2011
More from Greenwald:

"For two years now, the Obama DOJ has been defending the constitutionality of DOMA in federal courts around the country. In response to objections from gay groups, Obama officials -- and their supporters -- insisted that the President had no choice, that it's the duty of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of all laws enacted by Congress, and that it's dangerous for the President to pick and choose which laws to defend or not defend. That's actually a reasonable position; there is a genuine danger in having the President selectively defend Congressional statutes (although many past administrations have refused to defend particular laws where they believed they could not in good faith do so). Although I believe it is appropriate in rare cases for the DOJ to refuse to defend a statute or even affirmatively argue for its unconstitutionality (provided it continues to enforce the law until it's repealed or struck down), there is a valid concern on the part of those who argue -- as Obama supporters did for the last two years -- that it's never appropriate for the DOJ to refrain from defending a statute or, at least, that it would be wrong to do so in the DOMA case."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/24/bliss/index.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnfit78
Scatter, Senbonzakura
11:59 PM on 02/25/2011
Actually, that's the military's own fault. You can't imagine how much training we had for sexual harassment, discrimination, drunk driving, and any other social issue you can think of. Folks that have served will tell you that the top brass tends to go overboard with this type of stuff. It is not as simple as someone just saying "Stop hating that person because of their sexual orientation."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:29 AM on 02/26/2011
I agree, but the 25 other countries who made the change did so immediately or within 4 months. If they can do it, we can do it:

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/gays_foreign_militaries_2010
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
05:21 PM on 02/26/2011
No we can't. We have to hold the bigots' hands and say, "There, there, that's OK. I'm here for you." The bigots can just get over it and realise that GLBT serve just the same as straights. There is entirely too much coddling of the bigots and their "concerns".
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
12:39 AM on 02/26/2011
We covered "don't annoy your cow-orkers with non-work-related krep" in about 15 minutes at my last two civilian jobs.

It's not really that complicated.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hoobit
GOP/TBs: The USA is Not a game!
11:43 PM on 02/25/2011
Credit due this administration for doing everything *by the book* on this particularly 'hot button' issue. If they make one single misstep in the process of forever ending DADT, you just know the opposition will be all over it, The opposition'll take that misstep and use it to drag the repeal back into the courts...thus delaying --on and on and on and on-- the military in its completely deep-sixing the unConstitutional, discriminatory, and utterly absurd policy known as DADT.

POTUS (and his DoJ) was 100% correct in insisting Congress bring repeal of DADT up for a vote in the first place -- everyone grumbled and vilified him for not signing an order to get rid of the policy. Thing of it is: had he issued an Executive Order (as he was legally able to to) those opposed to the repeal (and/or to Obama) would have cried: Foul! It would have ended up in the courts as a never-ending circus and eventually, probably, before the SCOTUS. (Yeah, like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas are going to overturn DADT? Riiiiiiiiiight.)

As it was, POTUS did it 'by the book,' Congress voted on it, and that was that. Period. There're just a few loose ends to tie up. We ought to trust him on his handling of this part of the DADT repeal, too.
12:21 AM on 02/26/2011
Republicans still complained either way, let's stop using Republicans as a barometer to decide whether or not something is being done correctly.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
12:50 AM on 02/26/2011
Um, the reason this case "is back in court" is because the administration contested the district court's ruling last September that the gay ban was unconstitutional. Had the administration not chosen to appeal that decision, legislative repeal would not have been necessary.

As for "the opposition," the case at issue is "Log Cabin Republicans v United States." Republicans are the good guys here, and the administration is the party trying to secure the appellate court's blessing to continue to enforce the — how do you say? — "unConstitutional, discriminatory, and utterly absurd" law against gays.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hoobit
GOP/TBs: The USA is Not a game!
02:24 AM on 02/26/2011
Last September (when the ruling was handed down), DADT was the law of the land. The DoJ *had* to defend the policy (and against the ruling). The only way they could *not* defend DADT, was if it were (had been, by then) overturned by the very body that enacted it in the first place: Congress.

Going the 'easy route' to get DADT overturned by not contesting the Sept ruling, would also have resulted in a huge dust-up -- this one, about "liberal judges legislating from the bench" and all sorts of related malarky -- just drawing it out longer and longer and longer.

So, yes, legislative repeal WAS necessary. DADT *is* unConstitutional, discriminatory, and utterly absurd. In not challenging on Friday *that* part of the judge's Sept ruling, the DoJ (tacitly) signalls complete agreement with the judge. All the DoJ is doing, now, is asking --on behalf of the military and as outlined at the time of the legislative repeal-- that the judge hold off on any *further* rulings (on this case) until the military has everything 'ready to go' as *soon* as the judge's (expected and logical) ruling is handed down.

IOW, as someone has already pointed out, POTUSs mind is set up for chess and most others have minds set up for checkers. POTUS is doing *exactly* what HAS to be done to toss DADT in its well-deserved grave. Give him time to do it properly.
11:16 PM on 02/25/2011
Why haven't you all learned that Obama plays chess while you all think in checkers. I trust that strategically he's paving the way for DADT and DOMA to be struck down simultaneously in one fell swoop. It seems he'll have to figure out a way break his thought process down to simple phrases like "I'm the decider or Mission accomplished", to appease you all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
artandcolour
out and proud far left liberal gay starving artist
11:29 PM on 02/25/2011
really well put! agree with you 100%.
11:34 PM on 02/25/2011
You give him way too much credit.
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:10 AM on 02/26/2011
In fairness, brent777 may not be a particularly sophisticated thinker.
photo
Brenda Starr
Time is before us. Time is after us.
11:16 PM on 02/25/2011
Is everybody ready to protest tomorrow to restore the middle class? I know I am. My lunch is packed. Power to the people! Demonstrations in every State Capital and some closer to home. Go to moveon.org to find the Saturday picnic site for your neighborhood.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Imago
I thought so.
11:31 PM on 02/25/2011
Fan #1! :-)
photo
Brenda Starr
Time is before us. Time is after us.
12:44 AM on 02/26/2011
See you there! Thanks.
11:08 PM on 02/25/2011
Dan Woods, who is representing the group, said Friday's legal filing by the Justice Department represented a major change in the government's position, even though the lawyers were arguing that "don't ask, don't tell' should remain in effect for now.

"The government's brief is stunning for what it does not say," Woods said. "By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the government's brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that 'don't ask, don't tell' was and is unconstitutional."

The Department of Justice previously asked the 9th Circuit to put the case on hold since the administration expects gays to be able to join and serve openly in the armed forces by the end of the year. A three-judge panel rejected that request last month, but West said that decision is not binding on the different three judges who will be assigned the broader appeal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
52tucker
Captain of trashpile sleeping.
11:07 PM on 02/25/2011
How much training does it take to say, "Hey guys, some of you are gay. Lets do our job." I understand it is a court issue at this point, but as far as training goes, it should be fairly cut and dry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnfit78
Scatter, Senbonzakura
12:01 AM on 02/26/2011
Then you don't know the military real well.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JShankel
I want my country forward
12:23 AM on 02/26/2011
Yeah, they're very delicate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
52tucker
Captain of trashpile sleeping.
02:22 PM on 02/26/2011
Agreed, I don't know the military very well at all. After reading some of the comments here I'm starting to get the picture on how difficult and long the process will be to adjust the regulations though. It's fascinating as an outsider- I'm sure for those who serve its got to be a different issue entirely!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
avg american
It's about jobs, jobs, jobs...
12:19 AM on 02/26/2011
Nope, sorry... wish it were that simple. The regs are probably being rewritten for new recruits on what is considered acceptable behavior according to the UCMJ.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
52tucker
Captain of trashpile sleeping.
02:24 PM on 02/26/2011
This whole process has given me a whole different insight into the armed forces - It will be interesting for years, I'm sure, watching the developments. I wish it were easy though!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
FoxyOldBroad
11:02 PM on 02/25/2011
"The government's brief is stunning for what it does not say," Woods said. "By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of 'don't ask, don't tell,' the government's brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that 'don't ask, don't tell' was and is unconstitutional."
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Imago
I thought so.
11:16 PM on 02/25/2011
F&F for your comments in this thread. Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:01 PM on 02/25/2011
So many jerking knees!

Here's how I see it - The administration recognizes that homophobia and theological conservatism run deep in the US military - and now that DADT is headed into the dustbin of history - an orderly, non-violent transition in the culture of the armed services (which is ALREADY in progress) is in the best interests of the country.

An overnight revolution in a hundreds-of-years old, deeply conservative (and lethally armed) tradition just might produce results and incidents better smoothed-over as delicately as possible.

I think everyone would be better served taking small steps forward - but never looking back...
photo
the crustybastard
I could be worse, and have been.
01:14 AM on 02/26/2011
So your argument is the administration should be allowed the unprecedented power to apply an unconstitutional law against a minority for their own good?

Wow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:29 AM on 02/26/2011
Yeah - that's it. You're as perceptive as you are subtle...