Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DOJ DADT Injunction

DOJ DADT Injunction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,976 |Likes:
Published by joenyc

More info:

Published by: joenyc on Sep 24, 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

09/23/2010

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TONY WESTAssistant Attorney GeneralANDRÉ BIROTTE, Jr.United States AttorneyJOSEPH H. HUNTVINCENT M. GARVEYPAUL G. FREEBORNEW. SCOTT SIMPSONJOSHUA E. GARDNER RYAN B. PARKER U.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)DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TOPLAINTIFF’S PROPOSEDJUDGMENT
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)
 
353-0543DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’SPROPOSED JUDGMENT
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 235 Filed 09/23/10 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:6781
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1OBJECTIONS.........................................................................................................3I.OBJECTION 1: BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONSINVOLVED WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISENFORCING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITYOF A LAW, PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED WORLDWIDE ANDMILITARY-WIDE INJUNCTION IS UNTENABLE.................................3A.Any Injunction Should Be Limited to Plaintiff and ItsMembers..............................................................................................3B.Plaintiff’s Proposed Injunction Would Foreclose theUnited States from Litigating the Constitutionality of DADT in Other Courts........................................................................6C.Plaintiff’s Proposed Injunction Also Improperly Seeksto Prevent the Government From Making the ShowingPermitted by the Ninth Circuit in Witt................................................8D.Plaintiff’s Proposed Injunction Impermissibly Seeks toEffectively Negate Courts of Appeals’ Rulings UpholdingDADT..................................................................................................8II.OBJECTION 2: PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED INJUNCTIONSEEKS TO EXTEND BEYOND ENJOINING DADT...............................9III.OBJECTION 3: NO INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ENTEREDOR MADE EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT HASHAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE TERMS OFANY INJUNCTION AND TO MOVE FOR A STAY...............................10IV.OBJECTION 4: LCR IS NOT ENTITLED TO EAJA FEES ...................13
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICECIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
 
P.O.
 
B
OX
883,
 
B
EN
F
RANKLIN
S
TATION
W
ASHINGTON
,
 
D.C.
 
20044(202)
 
353-0543DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’SPROPOSED JUDGMENT
-i-
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 235 Filed 09/23/10 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:6782
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASESPAGE(S)
Able v. United States,155 F.3d
 
628 (2d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................1Bowen v. Kendrick,483 U.S. 1304, 108 S. Ct. 1, 97 L. Ed. 2d 787 (1987).....................................12Bresgal v. Brock,843 F.2d
 
1163 (9th Cir. 1987)............................................................................4Califano v. Yamasaki,442 U.S. 682, 99 S.Ct. 2245, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979)........................................4Chappell v. Wallace,462 U.S. 296, 103 S. Ct. 2362, 76 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1983)...................................4Cook v. Gates,528 F.3d
 
42 (1st Cir. 2008).................................................................................1De Arellano v. Weinberger,788 F.2d
 
762 (D.C. Cir. 1986)............................................................................5Gilligan v. Morgan,413 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 2440, 37 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1973).........................................4Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition,408 F.3d
 
613 (9th Cir. 2005)............................................................................13Hurley v. Kincaid,285 U.S. 95, 52 S. Ct. 267, 76 L. Ed. 637 (1932)..............................................5INS v. Hibi,414 U.S. 5 94 S. Ct. 19, 38 L. Ed. 2d 7 (1973).............................................6, 7Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc.,207 F.3d
 
783 (5th Cir. 2000).........................................................................9League of Women Voters of Cal. v. FCC,798 F.2d
 
1255 (9th Cir.1986)...........................................................................13Meinhold v. Dep’t of Defense510 U.S. 939, 144 S. Ct. 374, 126 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1993)..............................5Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms,130 S. Ct. 2743, 177 L. Ed
 
. 2d 461 (2010).........................................................4 National Center for Immigrants Rights v. INS,743 F.2d
 
1365 (9th Cir. 1984)............................................................................4 New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co.,434 U.S. 1345, 98 S. Ct. 359, 54 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1977)...................................12
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)
 
353-0543DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’SPROPOSED JUDGMENT
-ii-
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 235 Filed 09/23/10 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:6783

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)//-->