Judge orders immediate end to DADT

Timothy Kincaid

October 12th, 2010

Judge Phillips has responded positively to Log Cabin Republicans’ request for an immediate and worldwide injunction against the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (CNN):

A federal judge ordered Tuesday that the U.S. military stop enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military “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” policy.

Updates (Jim Burroway): Log Cabin Republicans, who brought the successful lawsuit to federal court, cautioned servicemembers against coming out at this time, since the Justice Department still has sixty days in which it can appeal.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told The Advocate that he didn’t know whether the Administration would seek a stay of the ruling. He also didn’t know if any steps had been made to bring the Pentagon into compliance with the injuinction. Instead, he said, “, nor did he know if any steps have been taken to bring the Pentagon into compliance with the injunction. Gibbs said, “The president will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair.” It seems to me that Judge Phillips already took care of that task. 

Here is the full text of the injunction:

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.

Pender

October 12th, 2010

Holy smokes!

What happens now? Is DADT instantaneously suspended while DOJ scurries around deciding whether to appeal or trying to get an emergency injunction?

John

October 12th, 2010

So what time does our “fierce advocate” file the appeal?

Lindoro Almaviva

October 12th, 2010

And i will be the first one to eat a little humble pie and say that the LCR did a bang of a job on this one. They have earned my respect.

Today, many people who dismissed the LCR, like me, need to reassess what we said about them. It is a good day to be a Log Cabin republican in this country.

Bernie

October 12th, 2010

Thank God!! A step in the right direction for once.

God Bless our Soldiers.

Ray

October 12th, 2010

“It seems to me the Judge Phillips already took care of that task. ”

Touche! Le Coup de grâce!

Tone

October 12th, 2010

The White House has appealed a previous instance of DADT being overturned by a lower court haven’t they? Why would they stop screwing US soldiers now just when they’re loving it?

Everett

October 12th, 2010

While I’m sure the Justice Department will appeal this original ruling of Judge Phillips because the DOJ should defend laws enacted by Congress…I do NOT think that the DOJ is obliged to appeal a ruling on an injunction everytime. And so, I think the DOJ does have a bit of wiggle room in which it can appeal Judge Phillips’ intial ruling that asserted that DADT is unconstitutional, but the DOJ does not have to appeal this injunction…But knowing Mr. Obama (Is it Nov. 2012 yet?) his DOJ will likely even appeal the injunction ruling, which is unfortunate.

Robin

October 12th, 2010

Does this mean then that all those service people who received “dishonorable discharge” because they were gay are now allowed to get their release papers reclassified in a more favorable light?

Those are the ones that paid the price for such a screwed up policy, and really deserve retribution.

Mark F.

October 12th, 2010

Our “fierce advocate” already appealled, John. That was quick!

occono

October 12th, 2010

^ I think you’re mixing up DOMA and DADT there.

Rob San Diego

October 12th, 2010

I’m placing my bet that of the 60 day appeal, the DOJ will wait till day 58, just like they did in DOMA. They will wait to the last minute.

Good question Robin, I’m curious to see what happens.

Mark F.

October 12th, 2010

Yep, you’re right re: the appeal. But I don’t doubt there will be one.

Aeval

October 13th, 2010

Does this ruling mean that gay service men and women can come out openly now, or do they still need be cautious?

John

October 13th, 2010

Aeval: NO. Anyone who is gay and currently in the service should NOT “come out” because DADT is still in effect regardless of this judges’ order. The Administration has 60 days to file an appeal and you can bet that they will.

Jonathan

October 13th, 2010

I wonder if the folks at The Advocate were able to restrain their laughter when Gibbs said, “The president will continue to work as hard as he can to change the law that he believes is fundamentally unfair.”

Obama’s mouth must get pretty chapped working so hard to give us lip service when he’s not blowing the Pentagon.

enough already

October 13th, 2010

It is 100% certain that this administration will appeal.

One could be charitable and point out that they are trying to:
a) Restore constitutional order after Bush.
b) Trying to avoid another Roe vs. Wade situation – the Catholics, Mormons and all the other christianists will never accept a Supreme Court decision as law.

I’m not feeling charitable right now, I’m furious as can be that I have to vote in a few weeks for the Democrats. The alternative is unthinkable.

Greg

October 13th, 2010

Everett, when I took my Government class and college poli sci classes we talked about this thing called “checks and balances”. The Executive’s check on the Legislative is that it can choose how, when, or if (barring injunction by the Judiciary) to enforce laws.

Already, the Obama Administration has been told not to enforce the anti-marijuana laws in states where medical marijuana is legal. There are some rogues bucking the Administration (who somehow haven’t been replaced–remember all members of the DOJ serve at the pleasure of the President). There have been other cases. The Legislative does not have supreme authority and the Executive isn’t straitjacketed.

Mortanius

October 13th, 2010

“Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda, disregarding the views of all four military service chiefs and the constitutional role of Congress,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, adding that this should be an issue in the Nov. 2 congressional elections.

Funny how this Federal Judge is an activist judge when we didn’t hear a peep out of them for the last 2-3 Federal Judges with similar rulings about equal rights, oh, that’s right they were appointed by Republican Presidents, this one was appointed by Clinton. FLAME ON FRC and all the other right wing religious bigots.

Kevin

October 13th, 2010

enoughalready,

go vote democratic. i understand and basically agree with your perspective on the alternative, but do NOT give $$$…and let them know why you’re not going to donate and when you’ll return to financial support.

the political parties need cash just about as much as they need votes. notice how much the dems are trailing in money. the liberal base has locked its collective wallet.

Carmen Diaz

October 13th, 2010

It’s good, but I hate it when our human rights now have to have some basis in the Constitution as if our rights flow from the government, and we need a judge to tell us what they are.

Lucrece

October 13th, 2010

Yes, human rights flow from the government because they’re human constructs. We AGREE and enforce the idea that human rights should be created, because they certainly are not self-evident and existent regardless of local convention.

If you have any doubts go visit the nearest crocodile infested waters and see how “obvious” human rights turn out to be. Or pay a visit to Saudi Arabia without a veil and highly revealing clothing.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.