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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LCR v USA - Response to Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance

LCR v USA - Response to Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance

Ratings: (0)|Views: 133 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
LCR's response to government's Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance in LCR v USA (DADT case). Filed 1/10/2011
LCR's response to government's Motion to Hold Appeals in Abeyance in LCR v USA (DADT case). Filed 1/10/2011

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jan 10, 2011
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

01/10/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
LOSANGELES 894851 (2K)
Case Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,a non-profit corporation,
 Appellee/Cross-Appellant 
,vs.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ROBERT M. GATES,SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity,
 Appellants/Cross-Appellees
.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIANo. CV 04-8425, Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, Judge
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HOLD APPEALS IN ABEYANCE
Dan Woods (CA SBN 78638)dwoods@whitecase.comEarle Miller (CA SBN 116864)emiller@whitecase.comAaron A. Kahn (CA SBN 238505)aakahn@whitecase.com
WHITE & CASE LLP
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900Los Angeles, California 90071Telephone: (213) 620-7700Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
 Attorneys for Appellee/Cross-Appellant  Log Cabin Republicans
 
Case: 10-56634 01/10/2011 Page: 1 of 16 ID: 7605801 DktEntry: 48-1
 
 
LOSANGELES 894851 (2K)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageARGUMENT............................................................................................................1A. This Court should reject the government’s constant attempts atdelay and avoiding the issues........................................................................2B. The legislative “repeal” of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell remains contingentand thus incomplete, and meanwhile the statute continues to workits pernicious, unconstitutional effect..........................................................41. The repeal process is a lengthy one...................................................52. Don't Ask, Don't Tell will continue to impose itsunconstitutional effects throughout the entire time untilrepeal is fully effective.........................................................................73. The government rejected a feasible compromise thatwould protect servicemembers’ Constitutional rights...................10C. If the briefing schedule is suspended and the appeal held inabeyance, then the stay of the district court’s permanent injunctionshould be lifted and the injunction reinstated..........................................11CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................12
Case: 10-56634 01/10/2011 Page: 2 of 16 ID: 7605801 DktEntry: 48-1
 
 
LOSANGELES 894851 (2K)
1Log Cabin Republicans, Appellee/Cross-Appellant herein, opposes themotion of the government appellants, the United States of America and Robert M.Gates, Secretary of Defense, to hold these appeals “in abeyance” and suspendbriefing and argument on the important Constitutional issues presented.
ARGUMENT
Although a bill to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute, 10 U.S.C. §654, has been passed and signed by the President, this legislative “repeal” is notyet effective. It is undisputed, and the government’s motion acknowledges, thatrepeal will not take effect for 60 days following certification by three officials thatseveral requirements have been met – a certification for which there is no deadlineor expected timetable. The repeal also may not take effect at all if threatenedCongressional action to “repeal the repeal” proceeds. In the meantime, Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell continues in full force. Homosexual Americans who wish to enlist inthe armed forces may not do so openly; current homosexual servicemembers mustcontinue to lie about their identity and serve under ongoing threat of investigation;and servicemembers identified as homosexual continue to be subject to discharge.The district court found the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell statute faciallyunconstitutional because it violates the due process and First Amendment rights of homosexuals who currently serve, or wish to serve, in our country’s Armed Forces.The government elected to appeal that judgment, and stipulated to expedite the
Case: 10-56634 01/10/2011 Page: 3 of 16 ID: 7605801 DktEntry: 48-1

You're Reading a Free Preview

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