Obama Urges Supreme Court Not To Interrupt DADT Enforcement
PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 11, 2010
The Obama administration on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court
not to interrupt enforcement of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” the law that bans
gay and bisexual troops from serving openly, while it appeals a lower
court's ruling that found the policy to be unconstitutional.
The filing comes in response to an application made last week by a gay
GOP group challenging the military ban. Lawyers for the Log Cabin
Republicans have asked the court to reinstate a lower court's order
against enforcement of the policy.
The government argued that forcing the military to halt the policy at a
time of war would create problems.
“The military should not be required to suddenly and immediately
restructure a major personnel policy that has been in place for years,
particularly during a time when the nation is involved in combat
operations overseas,” Clifford L. Stanley, the under secretary of defense
for personnel readiness, wrote in a supporting document.
In their plea, lawyers for the Log Cabin Republicans argue that the
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it granted the Obama administration a permanent hold on a trial judge's order to stop enforcing
“Don't Ask, Don't Tell” while the government prepares an appeal to
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips'September ruling striking down the
law as unconstitutional and subsequent injunction against its enforcement.
The injunction was in place for 8 days before the same court set aside
the order temporarily.
The Supreme Court is only being asked to consider enforcement of the
policy as an appeal moves forward. The gay GOP group will have an
opportunity to respond to the government's filing before the court rules.
President Barack Obama has pledged to repeal the law that has ended
the military careers of over 13,000 service members, but says he would
prefer a legislative solution and has urged Congress to act. Backers of
repeal are lobbying senators to take a second look at repeal during the
upcoming lame-duck session that begins Monday. But recent GOP gains
Log Cabin lawyers in their filing argued that the Ninth Circuit's order
“was an abuse of discretion.”
“It ignored controlling precedent, including Lawrence (Lawrence v. Texas).
It sidestepped the requirement that respondents show a likelihood of
success on the merits, a showing they failed to make. It gave no
consideration whatsoever to the injury that will befall the applicant from
a stay. And it applied the wrong standard to respondent's claim of
irreparable injury, which rested entirely on speculation, by accepting as
sufficient the respondents' 'colorable' assertions of harm and injury, rather
than requiring them to show a 'likelihood' of irreparable injury as this Court's precedents dictate.”
Comments