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 - LCR's Opposition to motion for reconsideration

LCR v USA - LCR's Opposition to motion for reconsideration

Ratings: (0)|Views: 61 |Likes:
Published by Kathleen Perrin
LCR v. USA (DADT) LCR's opposition to the government's emergency motion to reconsider the order lifting the stay. Filed 7/21/11
LCR v. USA (DADT) LCR's opposition to the government's emergency motion to reconsider the order lifting the stay. Filed 7/21/11

More info:

Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jul 21, 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

07/21/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
LOSANGELES 922568 (2K)
Case Nos. 10-56634, 10-56813
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS,a non-profit corporation,
 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant 
,vs.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LEON E. PANETTA,SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, in his official capacity,
 Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees
.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. CV 04-8425, Honorable Virginia A. Phillips, Judge
RESPONSE OF APPELLEE LOG CABIN REPUBLICANSTO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross- Appellant Log Cabin Republicans
 
Case: 10-56634 07/21/2011 Page: 1 of 26 ID: 7829195 DktEntry: 121-1
 
 
LOSANGELES 922568 (2K)
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSI. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND............................................................................................2III. THE COURT SHOULD DENY THE EMERGENCY MOTIONFOR RECONSIDERATION........................................................................2A. Required Showing for Motions for Reconsideration.......................2B. This Court Did Not Misunderstand the Government’sPosition on the Constitutionality of DADT.......................................3C. This Court Did Not Misunderstand the Status of Implementation of Repeal..................................................................5D. The Attorney General’s Letter and the
Golinski 
Brief....................7E. Standing and Scope of Injunction....................................................10IV. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A STAY PENDINGAPPEAL.......................................................................................................11A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits................................................12B. Irreparable Injury.............................................................................15C. Injury to Other Parties.....................................................................18D. The Public Interest............................................................................19V. CONCLUSION............................................................................................20
Case: 10-56634 07/21/2011 Page: 2 of 26 ID: 7829195 DktEntry: 121-1
 
 
LOSANGELES 922568 (2K)
ii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CASES
 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell 
,632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011)............................................................................12
 Bowen v. Kendrick 
,483 U.S. 1304 (1987)............................................................................................7
 Bresgal v. Brock 
,843 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1987)............................................................................15
City of Cleburne
 
v. Cleburne Living Center 
,473 U.S. 432 (1985)..............................................................................................9
 Dep’t. of Defense v. Meinhold 
,510 U.S. 939 (1993)............................................................................................11
 Elrod v. Burns
,427 U.S. 347 (1976)............................................................................................18
Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco
,512 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)............................................................................19
 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 
,548 U.S. 557 (2006)..............................................................................................5
 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 
,542 U.S. 507 (2004)..............................................................................................5
 High Tech Gays v. Defense Industry Security Clearance Office
,895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990)................................................................................9
 Hilton v. Braunskill 
,481 U.S. 770 (1987)............................................................................................12
Case: 10-56634 07/21/2011 Page: 3 of 26 ID: 7829195 DktEntry: 121-1

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)//-->