Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
×

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LCR v USA - Application to Vacate Stay

LCR v USA - Application to Vacate Stay

Ratings: (0)|Views: 287|Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
LCR v USA (DADT case) Request by LCR to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the Court vacate the 9th Circuit's Order of stay pending appeal (w/attachments). Filed 11/5/2010
LCR v USA (DADT case) Request by LCR to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that the Court vacate the 9th Circuit's Order of stay pending appeal (w/attachments). Filed 11/5/2010

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Nov 05, 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

12/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 10A–_______ 
In theSupreme Court of the United States
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,
 Applicant 
,vs.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and 
ROBERT M. GATES,SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity,
Respondents 
.O
N
 A
PPLICATION TO
 V
 ACATE AN
O
RDER OF THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
 A
PPEALS FOR THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 
APPLICATION TO VACATE ORDERSTAYING JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Dan Woods
dwoods@whitecase.com
 
Counsel of Record 
Earle Miller
emiller@whitecase.com
  Aaron A. Kahn
aakahn@whitecase.com
 
WHITE & CASE LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 620-7700Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
 Attorneys for Applicant 
 
 
 
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................3
 
 A. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell statute and the proceedings below.....3
 
B. A stay of the district court’s order is not a matter of right,and respondents failed to make the required showing for astay.................................................................................................8
 
C. The court of appeals completely failed to balance thehardships, or to take into account at all the injury toapplicant that a stay causes..........................................................9
 
D. The court of appeals’ order ignored both the uncontrovertedevidence and controlling precedent to reach a result-orientedoutcome.........................................................................................14
 
1. A presumption of constitutionality does not trump abalancing of the equities...................................................14
 
2. Deference to military judgment does not outweighconstitutional rights..........................................................15
 
3. The court of appeals incorrectly ignored controllinglaw and claimed that an injunction would interferewith the pronouncements of other circuits.......................16
 
E. At a minimum, discharges under DADT must be suspended....19CONCLUSION..................................................................................................21CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT...................................................22
 
 
-
ii
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPageCases
 Able v. United States 
, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998)....................................16, 17
Blum v. Caldwell 
, 446 U.S. 1311 (1980)...........................................................15
Bowers v. Hardwick 
, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)....................................................3, 17
Brown v. Bd. of Educ.
, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)................................................20, 21
Brewer v. Landrigan 
, No. 10A416, 562 U.S. ___ (October 26, 2010)...............14
Edwards v. Hope Medical Group 
, 512 U.S. 1301 (1994)..................................15
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez 
, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (2010).....17
Cook v. Gates 
, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008)...........................................16, 17, 18
Elrod v. Burns 
, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).................................................................12
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 
, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)......................................................15
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 
, 542 U.S. 507 (2007).........................................................15
Hilton v. Braunskill 
, 481 U.S. 770 (1987)..........................................................8
Lawrence v. Texas 
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)...................................................
 passim 
 
Nken v. Holder 
, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1749 (2009)..............................8, 9, 15
Richenberg v. Perry 
, 97 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1996)......................................16, 17
Rostker v. Goldberg 
, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)...........................................................15
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.
, 463 U.S. 1315 (1983)...................................9, 15
Thomasson v. Perry 
, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996)......................................16, 17
United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.
, 549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008).....19
Weiss v. United States 
, 510 U.S. 163 (1994)....................................................15
Whalen v. Roe 
, 423 U.S. 1313 (1975)..................................................................9
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Bd. of Educ. v. Scott 
, 404 U.S. 1221(1971)................................................................................................................8
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council 
, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct.365 (2008).........................................................................................................9
Witt v. Department of the Air Force 
, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008)........
 passim 
 
Witt v. Department of the Air Force 
, 548 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2008)................4

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)//-->