Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
2:04-cv-08425 #202

2:04-cv-08425 #202

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5|Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc #202
Doc #202

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Aug 09, 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

09/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
LOSANGELES 869697 (2K)
PLAINTIFF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ONAPPLICATION OF WITT STANDARD OF REVIEW
DAN WOODS (State Bar No. 78638)EARLE MILLER (State Bar No. 116864)AARON A. KAHN (State Bar No. 238505)WHITE & CASE LLP633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 1900Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007Telephone: (213) 620-7700Facsimile: (213) 452-2329E-mail: dwoods@whitecase.comE-mail: emiller@whitecase.comE-mail: aakahn@whitecase.comAttorneys for Plaintiff LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non-profit corporation,Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICAandROBERT M. GATES (substituted forDonald H. Rumsfeld pursuant to FRCP25(d)), SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,in his official capacity,Defendants.Case No. CV 04-8425 VAP (Ex)
PLAINTIFF LOG CABINREPUBLICANS’ SUPPLEMENTALBRIEF ON APPLICATION OFWITTSTANDARD OF REVIEW
Trial Date: July 13, 2010Time: 9:00 a.m.Ctrm: 2Judge: Hon. Virginia A. PhillipsMotion for Summary JudgmentHearing Date: April 26, 2010Pre-Trial Conference: June 28, 2010Complaint Filed: October 12, 2004
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP -E Document 202 Filed 06/23/10 Page 1 of 19
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- i -
 
LOSANGELES 869697 (2K)
PLAINTIFF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ONAPPLICATION OF WITT STANDARD OF REVIEW
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1II. THE WITT STANDARD APPLIES TO LOG CABIN’SSUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS CLAIM.....................................................1A. The Question of the Standard of Review Is Independent of Whether the Challenge Is Facial or As-Applied....................................3B. DADT Fails Witt’s Intermediate Scrutiny Standard.............................4C. Beller Does Not Control This Case.......................................................5D. Evidence Is Not Restricted to the Legislative History...........................6E. A Facial Challenge to DADT Does Not Automatically EntitleDefendants to Summary Judgment......................................................10III. A STAY IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE RECENT LEGISLATIVEEVENTS DO NOT PROMISE REPEAL......................................................12IV. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................15
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP -E Document 202 Filed 06/23/10 Page 2 of 19
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- ii -
 
LOSANGELES 869697 (2K)
PLAINTIFF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ONAPPLICATION OF WITT STANDARD OF REVIEW
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis,581 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 2009)................................................................................7Beller v. Middendorf,632 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)............................................................................5, 6Blue Cross v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Center,490 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007)..............................................................................14City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center,473 U.S. 432, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985)........................................7Craig v. Boren,429 U.S. 190, 97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976)............................................3Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co.,498 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2007)............................................................................14FCC v. Beach Comm., Inc.,508 U.S. 307, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993)......................................8Goldman v. Weinberger,
 
475 U.S. 503, 106 S.Ct. 1310, 89 L.Ed.2d 478 (1986)........................................9Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,548 U.S. 557, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006)................................9, 10Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004)................................9, 10Kremens v. Bartley,431 U.S. 119, 97 S.Ct. 1709, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977)........................................14Lawrence v. Texas,539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).............................
 passim
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd.,593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979)..............................................................................14Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey,505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.
 
Ed.2d 674 (1992)............................3, 8, 11Rostker v. Goldberg,453 U.S. 57, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478 (1981)..................................10, 14Sell v. United States,539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003)......................................5Spector Motor Serv. Inc. v. McLaughlin,323 U.S. 101, 65 S.Ct. 152, 89 L.Ed. 101 (1944)..............................................14
Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP -E Document 202 Filed 06/23/10 Page 3 of 19

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)//-->