Log Cabin Repubs Respond to Gov’t Motion to Put DADT Suit On Hold

Posted on January 17th, 2011 by Katherine Franke
 1 comment  

As mentioned in a previous post, the government has moved to have the Log Cabin Republicans’ suit challenging DADT, which is pending before the 9th Circuit, put on hold in light of the enactment of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010.  The government’s position is that:

This Court should now suspend the briefing schedule and hold the case in abeyance to allow that process to continue to completion. Indeed, if the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff make the certification contemplated by the Repeal Act, the challenge to § 654 will be moot, and the completion of the review process mandated by the Repeal Act may make it unnecessary to ever consider the impact of the enactment of the Repeal Act on the basis for the decision below.

The Log Cabin Republicans have now filed their response, opposing the Government’s motion. The gist of the motion is:

1. DADT remains in effect for the foreseeable future, insofar as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 merely put repeal in motion, it didn’t actually repeal the law.  As such, gay men and lesbians continue to have to lie about their identities and risk discharge from the military under the existing policy.

2. The lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans made an offer to the government to agree to the abeyance if the goverment would agree not to discharge anyone under DADT policy pending full repeal.  The government turned down the deal.  Thus, it remains active military policy to enforce an unconstitutional policy, and continuing active review by the 9th Circuit is appropriate, indeed, necessary.

The government filed a response to the Log Cabin brief two days ago, arguing basically the same things it argued in its opening brief, and claiming that the Log Cabin Republicans were trying to do an end run around the 9th Circuit’s stay of Judge Phillips’ lower court order finding DADT unconstitutional.  Basically, the government takes the position that we should wait until the administrative repeal process works itself out and should trust that the Pentagon will do the right thing.

I have made additional arguments to those made by the Log Cabiners in their brief for why the court should deny the government’s abeyance motion, arguments not made by the Log Cabin Republicans.

Stay tuned.

One comment

  1. Warren Buffett’s new real estate franchise operation is actually open for business. Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, will have launched it really is Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices California Properties work group with about 3200 agents in …

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.