Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dept. of Justice Defends Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy

Dept. of Justice Defends Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,270 |Likes:
Published by JoeSudbay
Brief from the DOJ defending the constitutionality of DADT.
Brief from the DOJ defending the constitutionality of DADT.

More info:

Published by: JoeSudbay on Mar 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/30/2010

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr.United States AttorneyJOSEPH H. HUNTVINCENT M. GARVEYPAUL G. FREEBORNEW. SCOTT SIMPSONJOSHUA E. GARDNERRYAN B. PARKERU.S. Department of JusticeCivil DivisionFederal Programs BranchP.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 353-0543Facsimile: (202) 616-8460E-mail: paul.freeborne@ usdoj.gov
 Attorneys for Defendants United Statesof America and Secretary of Defense
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAEASTERN DIVISION
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANDROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense,Defendants. ))))))))))))))))No. CV04-8425 VAP (Ex)MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENTDATE: April 26, 2010TIME: 2:00 p.m.BEFORE: Judge Phillips
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICECIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCHP.O.
 
B
OX
883,
 
B
EN
F
RANKLIN
S
TATION
W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.C.
 
20044(202)
 
353-0543MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 136-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 
TABLE OF CONTENTSpage
 I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1II. THE DADT POLICY...................................................................................4III. ARGUMENT...........................................................................................8 A.LCR Has Failed To Satisfy The Minimum Requirements OOrganizational Standing And Defendants Are Entitled ToSummary Judgment On That Basis Alone..........................................8 B.Because Congress Could Rationally Have Concluded ThatThe DADT Policy Is Necessary To Maintain Unit Cohesion,Accommodate Personal Privacy, and Reduce Sexual TensionFor Military Effectiveness, LCR’s Facial Due ProcessChallenge Fails..................................................................................131.Standard..................................................................................132.Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim Fails as a Matter of Law........153.No Genuine Question of Material Fact Exists withRespect To LCR’s Substantive Due Process Claim...............18C.Plaintiff’s First Amendment Challenge Fails Because theDADT Policy and Testimony Establish that Service MembersAre Not and Have Not Been Discharged for Statements OtherThan to Show a Propensity or Intent to Engage in HomosexualActs...................................................................................................22IV. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................25
-i-
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 136-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 Able
v.
United States
,155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998).............................................................................16
 Beller 
v.
 Middendorf 
,632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)................................................................16, 17, 18
 Biodiversity Legal Found.
v.
 Badgley
,309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002)......................................................................8, 10
Celotex Corp.
v.
Catrett 
,477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. E2d (1986)......................................15
City of Chicago
v.
 Morales
,527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1999)...................................13
City of Los Angeles
v.
 Lyons
,461 U.S. 95, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983)...................................12
Cook 
v.
Gates
,528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008).........................................................................16, 18
Fed. Commuc'ns Comm'n
v.
 Beach Commc'ns
,508 U.S. 307, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 124 L. Ed. 2d 211 (1993)...............................14
Friends of the Earth
v.
 Laidlaw Envir. Servs.
,528 U.S. 167, 328 U.S. 167, 145 L. Ed. 2d 610 (2000).............................10, 11
Gange Lumber Co.
v.
 Rowley
,326 U.S. 295, 66 S. Ct. 125, 90 L. Ed. 85 (1945)............................................12
Gonzales
v.
Carhart 
,550 U.S. 124, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 167 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2007)...............................23
 Heller 
v.
 Doe
,509 U.S. 312, 113 S. Ct. 2637, 125 L. Ed. 2d 257 (1993).........................14, 20
 Hodgers-Durgin
v.
de la Via
,199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999)..........................................................................12
 Holmes
v.
California Army National Guard 
,124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 1997)...................................................................
 passim Howard 
v.
U.S. Dept. of Defense
,354 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................19
 Hunt 
v.
Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n
,432 U.S. 333, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)...................................4, 8
 Ileto
v.
Glock, Inc.
,565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)..........................................................................17
-ii-
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 136-1 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 30

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->