U.S. Supreme Court Allows DADT To Continue For Now

From the AP, Alliance Defense Fund:

Nov 12, 7:05 PM EST






High court allows gay military ban for now



By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press





AP Photo/Evan Vucci









Advertisement









Document

Audio slideshow on soldier who suffered a brain injury

PDF copy of wounded soldiers complaining about treatment in recovery unit

Army's new electronic warfare manual





Multimedia

Gays in the military timeline

Marines Train in Model Afghan Village

Military Greeters Welcome Troops Home

The MRAP vs. The HUMVEE



Honoring the Fallen





Database



Search the DOD Surplus Database



Latest News

High court allows gay military ban for now

Cindy McCain differs with husband on gay policy



Pentagon investigates leak on gay study



Groups hope Pentagon study on gays sways Congress



Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts



Marines stand by off coast of storm-battered Haiti



Military wants to fly more sophisticated drones



US officials: Military wants to boost aid to Yemen



Obama sees chance to overturn ban on military gays









Interactives

Who is Elena Kagan?

U.S. Supreme Court 2010 term





Supreme Court:

Other News









Buy AP Photo Reprints



















Related Multimedia

Compare the M4 and Other Rifles







Multimedia

Gays in the Military

Gay Rights Advocates March in DC

DC rights activist talks gays and government

Gay marriage timeline

Interactive: The Faces of Gay Marriage

Gay couples marry in California

Same-Sex Couple Reflects on California Ruling





Documents

Iowa Supreme Court's Ruling on Gay Marriage (April 3, 2009)

California Supreme Court's Ruling on Gay Marriage (May 15, 2008)





Latest News

High court allows gay military ban for now

Cindy McCain differs with husband on gay policy



Pentagon investigates leak on gay study



Groups hope Pentagon study on gays sways Congress



Malaysia gay-themed film gets applause at 1st show







PHOTO GALLERY



Gay Marriage







WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Pentagon to continue preventing openly gay people from serving in the military while a federal appeals court reviews the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.



The court did not comment in denying a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of "don't ask, don't tell." The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.



Last month, a federal judge ruled that the policy violates the civil rights of gay Americans and she issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from applying it. But the San Francisco-based appeals court said the policy could remain in effect while it considers the administration's appeal.



"Log Cabin Republicans are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to maintain the status quo with regards to 'don't ask, don't tell,' but we are not surprised," said R. Clarke Cooper, the group's executive director. "We are committed to pursuing every avenue in the fight against this failed and unconstitutional policy."



President Barack Obama has pledged to push lawmakers to repeal the law in the lame-duck session before a new Congress is sworn in. But administration lawyers have in the meantime defended "don't ask, don't tell" in court.



The policy, which prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, was lifted for eight days in October after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that it is unconstitutional. The Obama administration asked the appeals court to reinstate the ban until it could hear arguments on the broader constitutional issues next year.



Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the court's consideration of the issue. Kagan served as the administration's chief Supreme Court lawyer before she became a justice in August.



---



Associated Press writer Julie Watson in San Diego contributed to this report.



© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.





And this, related, from SCOTUS Blog:
 
Lyle Denniston Reporter




Posted Friday, November 12th, 2010 1:21 pm

RSSEmail LyleBio & Post Archive »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



UPDATE 1:51 p.m.: Military gay ban intact

(UPDATED) Without noting a dissent, but with Justice Kagan not taking part, the Court denied a gay rights advocacy group’s plea to block the military from enforcing the 1993 law that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the services. The order means the policy will remain in effect at least through March, unless Congress repeals it — an unlikely prospect.





UPDATE 1:51 p.m. The Supreme Court, without noting any dissent, agreed on Friday to leave the military’s “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy in full effect while its constitutionality is under review in a lower court. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy referred the issue to the full Court. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the order.



As a result of the order, the policy will remain in effect at least through mid-March, unless Congress in the meantime voted to repeal it legislatively — an unlikely prospect, according to most observers. The Ninth Circuit Court is reviewing a federal judge’s decision to strike down the policy and to impose a worldwide ban on its enforcement. The Circuit Court’s briefing schedule, however, will not be completed until late February or early March, and a hearing and decision would come after that.





The order Friday technically denied a request (application 10A465) to lift a Circuit Court stay of the judge’s decision — in other words, the Justices were asked to allow District Judge Virginia A. Phillips’ ruling to go into effect pending the appeal in the Circuit Court and, perhaps ultimately, in the Supreme Court. Because the Justices’ order was a complete denial, it meant that they had turned aside not only a plea to block the policy in full, but also an alternative request at least to stop the Pentagon from ordering any discharges under the policy during the appeal.



While it was not a surprise that Justice Kagan had opted not to take part in the order, that was nevertheless a significant development. It raised the prospect that, when the constitutional challenge reached the Supreme Court, the Justices might split 4-4 on it; that is always a risk when only eight Justices are taking part and the issue is a deeply controversial one. Should the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the policy, that result would simply be affirmed; without an opinion, if the Justices were actually to divide 4-4 in reaction to it.



Justice Kagan, in her former role as U.S. Solicitor General, had taken several actions on cases testing the constitutionality of the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy and those actions, presumably, led her to disqualify herself. That is a choice left entirely up to each individual Justice.



Friday’s order was not a good sign for the challengers of “don’t ask/don’t tell,” but it was not a ruling for or against the constitutionality of the policy. The Court’s decision to leave intact a lower court order in the situation that existed in this case at this time is based on different considerations, and does not necessarily telegraph how any Justice or the Court would come out after a full review of the merits of a case, following briefing and oral argument.



If it should turn out that Congress does not repeal the policy, despite the requests by President Obama and some of the Pentagon’s top civilian and uniformed officers, the constitutional challenge in the Log Cabin Republicans’ case would be the only potential way to end the policy, at least for several more years.



The following was posted here earlier Friday on completion of the briefing on the stay application:





Noting that the Pentagon on its own has stopped discharging gay and lesbian members of the services, a gay rights group on Friday told the Supreme Court that the military will suffer no harm if the Justices now bar discharges under the 1993 “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy. In a final brief, the Log Cabin Republicans also noted a spate of news reports indicating that repeal of the gay ban by Congress is less and less likely, leaving only the courts to act on what a federal judge has decided is an unconstitutional policy.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is considering, and could refer to the full Court, an application to put into full effect U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips’ ruling that the 1993 law is unconstitutional in all of its aspects, and the judge’s worldwide injunction that would bar its continued enforcement. With the filing of the Log Cabin Republicans’ reply brief, the application (10A465) is now ready for the Court to act, and an order could come at any time.



If the Justices leave intact a Ninth Circuit Court stay of Judge Phillips’ order, the policy will remain in effect while its validity is tested in the Ninth Circuit and, perhaps, ultimately before the Justices. If the Justices, however, lift that stay, at least part of the gay ban would be interrupted for the time being.



The Obama Administration, in urging the Justices on Wednesday to leave the policy in place, argued that a recent change in the Pentagon’s discharge policy now provides gays in the military with greater protection. The decision to discharge under the policy, the government brief said, must now be made at the highest levels of the Pentagon.



Responding directly on that point, the Log Cabin Republicans cited a news article in the Army Times last week indicating that no discharges have been made under “don’t ask/don’t tell” since the change in policy on Oct. 21. That change, the advocacy group’s brief contended, “is inconsistent with the government’s argument here that delaying discharges pending appeal would cause injuries that merit retention of the stay in full.”



While the challengers to the policy want it to be blocked in all respects, they have urged the Court, as an alternative, at least to stop any further discharges while the case continues in the courts.



The reply brief also sought to counter other government arguments, including the assertion that the Supreme Court would not be likely in the future to review the constitutional case over the gay ban. There is already a conflict in the appeals courts over the standard to be used in judging the constitutionality of the 1993 law, the brief noted. Moreover, it said, the Court “has had few opportunities” to spell out the scope of constitutional protection for gays and lesbians since its landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 expanding that protection.



The government’s brief had argued that the Court has denied review of a challenge to “don’t ask/don’t tell” since issuing its Lawrence decision — the denial on June 8 last year of the First Circuit Court’s ruling in Cook v. Gates. (When the petition was denied, the case was titled Pietrangelo v. Gates, because most of the other parties in that case had opposed taking the case to the Supreme Court and, in fact, urged the Court to deny review.)



The Log Cabin Republicans’ reply brief Friday said that the Justices’ review of that case was opposed by the other challengers based on the argument that the Court should await the development of a full factual record at a trial on the policy’s constitutionality. “This case now has a fully developed factual record,” the brief said.



When the Pietrangelo petition was before the Court, Elena Kagan, then U.S. Solicitor General, opposed review, saying that case was “an unsuitable vehicle” for the Court to use to review “don’t ask/don’t tell.” Kagan, of course, is now a member of the Supreme Court. Kagan was not yet in office as Solicitor General in February 2009 when the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to give it more time to pursue an appeal of a major Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the policy — the Circuit Court’s ruling in Witt v. Department of the Air Force. Although the Administration was given until May to file such a petition, it opted not to do so. Kagan was sworn in as Solicitor General on March 20, 2009; it is not known whether she took part in the government decision at that time not to appeal that case.



Similarly, it is unknown whether she will feel obliged to recuse from any action the Court takes on the Pentagon policy now or in the future. That could be known when the Court acts on the Log Cabin Republicans’ application.