More

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': GOP Gay Rights Group Asks Appeals Court To Declare DADT Unconstitutional

Military Ban On Gays

LISA LEFF and JULIE WATSON   09/ 1/11 05:42 PM ET   AP

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with whether it can declare the military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is due to be lifted in 19 days.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard about 45 minutes of arguments in Pasadena, Calif. from a lawyer for the gay rights group that successfully sued to overturn "don't ask, don't tell" in a lower court last year, and from a lawyer representing the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Justice argues the lower court ruling should be invalidated because the ban's coming demise has rendered the case moot. "Don't ask, don't tell" is due to be repealed Sept. 20.

But Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans, told the panel it needs to weigh in on the policy's civil rights implications because lawmakers or future administrations in Washington could decide at some point to reinstate the ban.

"Our point here is that if this case does not go forward on the merits and you don't affirm it on the merits, the government will be completely unrestrained in its ability to again ban gay service in the military," Woods said. "We have multiple presidential candidates promising as part of their campaign platforms to repeal the repeal."

Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short or their veteran' benefits withheld, Woods said.

"There are collateral consequences of `don't ask, don't tell" that exist even after the law is repealed," he said.

Representing the government, Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker countered that the court should not issue a decision based on speculation about what might happen in the future.

If discharged service members want to sue for reinstatement or damages, as several already have, those cases would be the appropriate venue for exploring the ban's constitutional implications, Whitaker said.

"Even today, the military is accepting applications from gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the armed forces, including from gays and lesbians who were discharged," he said, acknowledging the case will not be "technically moot" for another few weeks.

"No matter how you slice it, even today, there is no case or controversy."

Whitaker asked the panel to wait until Sept. 20 or after to issue an order dismissing the case and vacating U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' ruling from last September that found "don't ask, don't tell" violates the due process and First Amendment rights of gay service members. If the three judges do otherwise, he said, the government could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two of the panel's judges, Circuit Judge Dairmuid O'Scannlain of Portland and Senior Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon of Los Angeles, gave no indication of which way they were leaning.

The third, Circuit Judge Barry Silverman of Phoenix, pressed Woods on why the court should weigh in now when the ban is weeks away from becoming history.

"You hear a lot about judicial activism, particularly here in the 9th Circuit, so I wonder if there is not a public interest in letting this case run its course," Silverman said.

Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction from Phillips in a Riverside, Calif., Court last year that halted enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" briefly as Congress was debating doing away with the policy. Nearly 14,000 military members have been discharged under the statute.

The 9th Circuit allowed the government to keep the policy in place while it considered the government's appeal, but in July told the government it was no longer allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who was openly gay.

O'Scannlain asked Whitaker if the government would continue to defend the gay ban, as it has throughout the Log Cabin litigation, if the 9th Circuit panel declined to dismiss the case. Whitaker said it would, since the U.S. Constitution clearly gives Congress authority "to raise and support its armies."

"Whatever current law is, we have been defending it," he said.

Richard Socarides, an adviser on gay rights to former President Bill Clinton, under whose administration "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted, said the government's position was surprising since President Barack Obama has backed the policy's repeal.

"Anyone focused on ending this policy for good should want (Phillips') ruling to stand on appeal," Socarides said Thursday. "It's an important statement about who we are as a country and our values – values that say discrimination is unconstitutional. It's not enough to say we repealed it. We need to declare it wrong, unconstitutional and illegal."

___

Watson contributed to this report from San Diego.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with whether it can declare the military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is...
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with whether it can declare the military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional when the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is...
Filed by Paige Lavender  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 353
  • 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 »  (7 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnSawyer
arglebargy
08:44 PM on 09/12/2011
Obama's Justice Department has been saying for some time that it's only trying to enforce all federal laws that are on the books, even ones that are indefensible and are under challenge and even on the way out, to try to set a precedent to reduce the likelihood in a future administration, of a repeat of the Bush Jr. administration's shredding of existing laws, such as those falsely making torture "legal" if the US government does it. But I don't buy this excuse, especially when people like Justice Department attorney Whitaker say "the court should not issue a decision based on speculation about what might happen in the future." Contrary to what some people would have other people believe, some laws are enacted that define what's legal and the punishment for breaking those laws, and some laws are enacted that specifically are intended to try to prevent "what might happen in the future". This attempted defense by Whitaker is such nonsense, that it stands as another illustration that the Justice Department's defense of indefensible laws just because they're on the books, has ulterior motives, such as indemnifying all the people who ordered torture to be done, and most of the people who performed the torture, as well as all kinds of other indefensible laws and acts designed to maintain the government's extraordinary, Constitution-shredding "just in case we need it" powers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
03:34 PM on 09/09/2011
We need to GET OUT THE VOTE in November 2012. This is disgusting. Of course @$$hats like Bachmann et al want DADT reinstated. Their hatred and that of their base (interestingly "the base" in Arabic is Al Quaeda, but I digress) wants to restrict the rights of GLBT people--if they thought they could, they would pass laws recriminalising the GLBT orientation.
03:11 AM on 09/07/2011
You can classify this under SHUTTER TO THINK: Michele Bachmann has made a campaign pledge to restore #DADT. If Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America is not ruled on at the appellate level, it will make it easier for Bachmann, Perry, and Romney to reinstate #DADT if any of them win. Take your head out of the ground and realize that we have to prepare politically just in case there is a disaster up a head.
06:24 PM on 09/04/2011
Thanks to all who pressed this issue and forced it to be changed. Next step, marriage and a federal ruling that all benefits of marriage are not the sole property of straights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atwill
Proud Father of a gay son.
07:57 AM on 09/02/2011
I agree. they need to make it so no future president can not over turn it and make gays go back in the closet. this is also why all gays in the military, as soon as it is lifted, need to come out. You can not say "Ok now you can be out" then two years later say "Go back in." Once you are out you are out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DMSmith
04:09 AM on 09/02/2011
Socarides said it perfectly! "It's an important statement about who we are as a country and our values – values that say discrimination is unconstitutional. It's not enough to say we repealed it. We need to declare it wrong, unconstitutional and illegal."
We need to know that we will not end up here again.
10:12 PM on 09/01/2011
There it is. Every day there's gay news on the front page. Just once....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erin84
12:25 AM on 09/02/2011
WAHH!
photo
Misterioso Adversario
THE THIRST MUTILATOR!
12:30 AM on 09/02/2011
Oh no relevant news stories to contemporary society being featured on a news site, how dreadful!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Noble Bo Bogarty
03:28 PM on 09/01/2011
This is so funny the Gay GOP is so dumb to support a party who don't like them, support them and goes against everything the GAY GOP supports. This group deserves everything they get from their party. If a Republican does win the White House and both houses of Congress goes to the Republican Party then gay right groups can hang it up because the GOP will repeal anything that help the gay community. Then if the Conservative Supreme Court gets a say in the issue they are truly screwed because the court will rule against the gay community because of their conservative lean.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DMSmith
04:13 AM on 09/02/2011
I have for years agreed with you about not seeing that a gay person could be a Republican.
However, in the past year Log Cabin Republicans have made a huge difference by their legal work. They have served the Gay Community well indeed - and the country.
Good for them!
They are actually giving their own party an important lesson.
I'm changing my mind about them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Noble Bo Bogarty
07:18 AM on 09/02/2011
how is they giving their party an important lesson, when their party is promising to repeal any law that support gay rights. This is plain non sense. The GOP party openly talk about the wicked vials of being gay. They don't even believe that gay's were born that way, they think its a mental problem that can be solved with prayer. Your premise that the Log Cabin Republicans have made a huge difference in the legal department is right and I have never denied that fact, but not with the help of their own party. The Democratic gay community accepts them more than their own party because they truly understand equal rights for all. So my argument stands, "how can the Gay GOP Log Cabin Republicans support a GOP Party who is against everything they stand for", That's like a African American who supports the KKK and wants to be part of their organization, knowing that the KKK can't stand the sight of them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
03:19 PM on 09/01/2011
This is what I've been saying. All of these discriminatory anti-gay policies should be fought over in court...blown apart, not just legislated. Pick them apart at their very foundations. This will not only protect against random rogue legislators in the future, but will also offer protections down to the state level and lower.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TVs Scotty J
02:45 PM on 09/01/2011
It's real simple. DADT is Unconstituional. No one should be forced to hide who they really are to serve their country. It's a law that should never have existed in the first place...
02:51 PM on 09/01/2011
You have Clinton to thank for it!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TVs Scotty J
03:58 PM on 09/01/2011
Clinton and a Republican Congress, yes. If we're gonna play the blame game, best to include everyone...
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
omobob
left coast, usa
02:35 PM on 09/01/2011
Like most republicans all their ideas are a return to some darker past. Like the Bush years.
02:34 PM on 09/01/2011
I wish I felt something for gays in the GOP but I really dont.
02:52 PM on 09/01/2011
Not a very smart comment, you must be a liberal!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnpw41042
$3 dollar bill here
05:09 PM on 09/01/2011
You are not the brightest crayon in the box are you? You must be a Baggie, lol
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
02:29 PM on 09/01/2011
I don't trust Obama at all. He caves on everything. This could have been settled by the courts, making sure Congress cannot reenact something as discriminatory as DADT--or worse. So much for our "fierce advocate.

As for the LCRs, good for them. If they can get the court to declare DADT unconsitutional, so much the better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onwisconsin
Trust women; protect choice.
02:39 PM on 09/01/2011
I have a hard time understanding how a gay person can be a part of the current Republican party.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
04:55 PM on 09/01/2011
Me2!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tman418
08:45 PM on 09/03/2011
It's simple. They are conservative on all issues except gay rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
02:23 PM on 09/01/2011
BRAVO!!

They are entirely correct. DADT MUST be declared Unconstitutional or else some future Congress could just as easily draft a law that establishes DADT again. The same is true for a future Administration by drafting a UCMJ that included a DADT provision.

Repeal means nothing for the long run.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
H S
In SF. Hoping to be proud of America again.
02:11 PM on 09/01/2011
As a general rule, Republicans who believe in personal freedom for all should support gay rights and self-determination for all. That being said, it's not surprising to me that the Log Cabin Republicans exist. Political thought isn't based on sexuality (i.e. if you're gay, you're automatically a Democrat). One should never make that assumption.

I'm gay and not a Democrat. But I'm not a Republican either. I don't agree with Conservatism at all because it's not good for America or her citizens. I'm also not a Democrat, for I don't believe Democrats are as liberal as they should be. We should be very careful not to pigeonhole people because of their sexual orientation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TVs Scotty J
02:43 PM on 09/01/2011
I think it boils down to the same boat as Black and Latino Republicans as Gay Republicans. The party does nothing to help any of these groups and it's always a headscratcher to see people working with a party that works against their own interests...