|| News ||
Page 1 of 1

Story Updated : October 12, 2010 05:23:00 PM

Judge Bars DADT Enforcement


DADT GAME OVER X390 (GETTY IMAGES) | ADVOCATE.COM

A federal judge has blocked enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell" and has ordered the Defense Department to suspend all investigations and discharges related to the policy.

U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips, who struck down DADT as unconstitutional last month after a July bench trial in Riverside, Calif., entered her judgment shortly before noon Pacific time on Tuesday and ordered that an injunction against the 17-year-old law become effective immediately.

But Justice Department attorneys may seek to appeal Phillips's injunction to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. They have argued that the district judge does not have the authority to block DADT (Phillips previously rejected those arguments in a pre-trial hearing).

Dan Woods, lead attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans, which originally filed the federal lawsuit challenging "don't ask, don't tell" in 2004, called the injunction "historic" but said he expects the government to seek a stay of the decision with the federal appeals court.

The scope of Phillips's decision blocking all enforcement of the policy is nearly identical to the remedy sought by Woods and his legal team in a September court filing. The Justice Department had argued that any injunction against DADT be limited to Log Cabin members only.

"Unless and until the government appeals the case and gets a stay from another court, 'don't ask, don't tell' is no longer the law of the land," Woods said.  

Woods and leading advocacy groups warned gay and lesbian service members not to come out, however, just as they advised against coming out when Phillips struck down DADT in September.

"This order will likely be appealed by the Justice Department and brought to the [ninth circuit] where [Phillips's] decision may well be reversed," Servicemembers Legal Defense Network legal director Aaron Tax said in a statement.

At a Tuesday briefing soon after Phillips issued the injunction, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told The Advocate he did not know whether the administration would seek a stay of the ruling, nor did he know if any steps have been taken to bring the Pentagon into compliance with the injunction.

"Obviously, there have been a number of [DADT] court cases that have ruled in favor of plaintiffs in this case, and the president will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair," Gibbs said.

The decision was hailed by advocacy groups and pro-repeal politicians alike. A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Speaker welcomed the news and added that she hoped no more service members would be discharged while legislative resolution is sought.

“The Speaker from the outset has strongly opposed DADT, which the House has voted to repeal," said Drew Hammill. "The Speaker continues to believe, until the Senate can act on the repeal of this policy and send it to the President’s desk, the Administration should place a moratorium on all dismissals under this policy.”

In the Log Cabin Republicans case, Phillips ruled that DADT fails to advance military readiness and unit cohesion. On the contrary, evidence at the two-week trial, which included testimony from discharged service members, showed that the policy has been used to “[prevent] servicemembers from reporting violations of military ethical and conduct codes, even in outrageous instances, for fear of retaliatory discharge,” she wrote.

Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said Tuesday that a worldwide halt to the policy "was the only reasonable solution."

"These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines sacrifice so much in defense of our nation and our Constitution," Berle said. "It is imperative that their constitutional freedoms be protected as well. This decision is also a victory for all who support a strong national defense. No longer will our military be compelled to discharge service members with valuable skills and experience because of an archaic policy mandating irrational discrimination."

The text of Phillips's permanent injunction against "don't ask, don't tell":


TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
This action was tried by Judge Virginia A. Phillips without a jury on July
13-16 and 20-23, 2010.  The Court filed a Memorandum Opinion on
September 9, 2010 (Doc. 232), and an Amended & Final Memorandum
Opinion, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, on October 8, 2010.
For all the reasons set forth therein, the Court: 

(1) DECLARES that the act known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" infringes
the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective
servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights
guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and
(b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress
of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America
and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees,
and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or
under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their
jurisdiction or command; 

(3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of
Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or
discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced
under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its
implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment. 

(4) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans' request to apply for
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2412; and

(5) GRANTS Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans' request to file a motion
for costs of suit, to the extent allowed by law. 

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Facebook. Page 1 of 1
Reader Comments
  • Name: Jeff
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 5:45:27 PM
    Hometown: Cincinnati

    Comment:

    So let me get this clear -- the Log Cabin Republicans are fighting for our rights. The Dems are appealing these decisions to keep us as second class citizens. This administration has the dishonor of fighting both DOMA and DADT at the same time in court. I just don't buy that he's so sneaky that's his DoJ is trying to do sloppy work, and frankly even if he is, I've seen him let so many chances slip by that I wouldn't believe it without proof. What a true waste of an administration. This donor has gone dry.

  • Name: MAN
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 12:37:03 PM
    Hometown: PHOENIX

    Comment:

    Under our Constitution, we have Three Branches of Government,. . .Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. All equal. Obama's Executive refused to rescind DADT, and he instructed his lackey Attorney General Holder to appeal the Federal Court rulings against DADT. Now he is appealing the DOMA Federal Court ruling. Yep, he sure does support gays and lesbians. The Federal Courts are not being activist, as some charge. They are closely reading our Constitution, which even the military must follow. As a former Naval Officer, I pledged to uphold and defend the Constitution. The courts are within their Constitutional authority to rule any legislative or executive action unconstitutional. Congress has been firmly in Democratic hands for the past 4 years. They have had an overwhelming majority and could damn well pass any bill they wanted to, and they had a Democratic president who could IF HE WANTED TO, sign it. Did it happen? Nope.

  • Name: MGB
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 12:07:02 PM
    Hometown: NY

    Comment:

    This is a disaster for the military, mostly because it is unlikely this admin will allow the DoJ to appeal. According to the presiding Judge, this decision came about in large part because the DoJ did a suspiciously poor job of defending the law. It is almost certain that the government’s lawyers were under instructions not to win the case. Service members live or die based on unit cohesion. This ruling will likely have a profound effect on that. The DoD has been conducting a detailed study on the impact of a policy change. Every service member was encouraged to take part. It won't be completed until December, and no truly educated decision can be made on this matter before then. The status quo is the only sensible option before then, and possibly after. Only around one tenth of one percent of the military was discharged under DADT in any given year, this decision affects everyone. The benefit for this blind action is far too minimal to justify a hasty change.

  • Name: CountryBoy
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 10:31:03 AM
    Hometown: MO

    Comment:

    Jeff, in L.A., I believe misses the point. Yes, change takes a long time and has already taken 17 years. One Judge CAN change things, IF he/she is judge in a Federal Court. This is an issue of constitutional rights. The bottom line here is that Obama hasn't, and won't, take any positive action on LGBT issues. Sadly, our elected legislators have no more back bone than the President. It is ONLY through the courts that we will achieve our rights. We don't have a Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson to LEAD. We must depend on the court system to do what is RIGHT; rather than what is politically expedient.

  • Name: Jeff
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 7:58:53 AM
    Hometown: L.A.

    Comment:

    This ruling is a joke. One judge does not rule or govern the entire military. It is a long long long process to change DADT. It is a "fairy" tale dream to think that it is just going to end and endure justice for all that fall under that catagory. Gays want instant results. It is not like the flicker of the screen of your computer. It does not happen instantly....... and save your @@@@@@@ to whomever comments.... I do not revisit a story more than once....seems people have more time to comment on others comments than the actual story.... sad. Speak your mind on the topic.

  • Name: Joseph
    Date posted: 10/13/2010 3:55:43 AM
    Hometown: Montgomery, AL

    Comment:

    @pepa: If you really believe that Obama is a liberal, I've got some lovely seaside property for sale. It's located about 50 miles to the east of Jacksonville, FL. I've also got a nice bridge for sale in San Francisco (beautiful golden color that just gleams at both sunrise and sunset). Oh, and I'm also looking to sell a nice wildlife refuge in Alaska, loaded with the gentlest, friendliest bears who just LOOOOOOVE playing with people. I suppose I really shouldn't make such those offers. I'm sure there are laws against taking advantage of the simple-minded and the brain-dead. The simple fact is, pepa, Obama is NOT a liberal--far from it. If he were TRULY as liberal as you brain-dead conservatards think, you wouldn't know what had hit you. The TRULY liberal among us recognized Obama as nothing more than just another statist, corporate shill whose only real selling point was his skin color and a plagiarized campaign slogan.

  • Name: mike
    Date posted: 10/12/2010 9:36:38 PM
    Hometown: cincinnati

    Comment:

    I would tell Obama to let the ruling stand. I would tell him to announce it now. I won't be voting for anyone if he doesn't. Obama has the power to let this ruling stand. He did nothing, so it is not on him. It is a huge waste of taxpayer money to fight this ruling and continue to play games denying equality for all citizens.

  • Name: Claire Lewis-Jones
    Date posted: 10/12/2010 7:53:33 PM
    Hometown: Kihei

    Comment:

    Hooray - one foot in front of the other....we will keep on keepin' on !!!

  • Name: scott
    Date posted: 10/12/2010 6:30:19 PM
    Hometown: portland

    Comment:

    Take that John McCain!!!

  • Name: Mike
    Date posted: 10/12/2010 6:28:31 PM
    Hometown: Seattle

    Comment:

    It's not about Obama and never has been. DADT is a dumb policy. If it was, or had been, reversed by a Presidential decree, it would have mobilized a right wing backlash. (Anyone who thinks that would be good for gays, is seriously deluded). If court after court finds it unconstitutional, as seems to be the trend, it'll probably just die a quiet death. The best thing the Obama administration could do at this point would be to not challenge the ruling. Just let it die, and let the U.S. catch up with most of the world in the area of civil rights.

 PREVIOUS 1 2 3 NEXT  


 
 
Advocate Subscribe Promo Banner 300x50
 
Follow Us Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterSubscribe to our RSS feedsDownload our app
Facebook Activity