Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
P. 1
DOJ Ninth Circuit brief in Log Cabin Republicans v. USA

DOJ Ninth Circuit brief in Log Cabin Republicans v. USA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 96 |Likes:
Published by hefflinger
DOJ's brief for the Ninth Circuit in Log Cabin Republicans v. USA ('Don't Ask, Don't Tell' case)
DOJ's brief for the Ninth Circuit in Log Cabin Republicans v. USA ('Don't Ask, Don't Tell' case)

More info:

Published by: hefflinger on Feb 26, 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

01/31/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT_______________________________ LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.,Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,_______________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA _______________________________ 
BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS
_______________________________ TONY WEST 
Assistant Attorney General
ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
United States Attorney
ANTHONY J. STEINMEYER(202) 514-3388AUGUST E. FLENTJE(202) 514-3309HENRY C. WHITAKER(202) 514-3180 
Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7256 Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C.  20530-0001
Case: 10-56634   02/25/2011   Page: 1 of 59    ID: 7660819   DktEntry: 58
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................  1STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES...............................................................  1STATEMENT OF THE CASE. .................................................................  2STATEMENT OF THE FACTS................................................................  4I. Statutory And Regulatory Background.................................  4II. This Litigation.......................................................................  14SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................  19ARGUMENT...........................................................................................   24I. Plaintiff Lacks Standing.......................................................  26A. J. Alexander Nicholson. ..............................................  28B. John Doe.......................................................................  34II. The Orderly Process Established By Congress ToRepeal § 654 Is Constitutional, Particularly GivenThe Deference Owed To Congress’s ConstitutionalAuthority To Craft Legislation Respecting MilitaryAffairs. ...................................................................................  37III. The District Court’s Worldwide Injunction AgainstThe Federal Government’s Enforcement Of A StatuteExceeded Its Remedial Authority........................................  43CONCLUSION.........................................................................................  48
Case: 10-56634   02/25/2011   Page: 2 of 59    ID: 7660819   DktEntry: 58
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases Page
Able
v.
United States
,155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998)................................................................  40
Arbaugh
v.
Y&H Corp.
,546 U.S. 500 (2006).............................................................................  32
Arizonans for Official English
v.
Arizona
,520 U.S. 43 (1997)...............................................................................  36
Beller
v.
Middendorf 
,632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980),
overruled in part on other groundsby Witt
v.
Dep’t of Air Force
, 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008). .............  40
Bresgal
v.
Brock
,843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987)............................................................  47
City of Los Angeles
v.
Lyons
,461 U.S. 95 (1983)...............................................................................  28
Cook
v.
Gates
,528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008).................................................................  40
County of Riverside
v.
McLaughlin
,500 U.S. 44 (1991)...............................................................................  32
Dep’t of Defense
v.
Meinhold
,510 U.S. 939 (1993).............................................................................  45
Doran
v.
Salem Inn, Inc.
,422 U.S. 922 (1975).............................................................................  44ii
Case: 10-56634   02/25/2011   Page: 3 of 59    ID: 7660819   DktEntry: 58

Activity (2)

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

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)//-->