Sen. Mark Udall: ‘best move forward’ for DADT is in Def. Bill — and he hasn’t spoken to White House

Kerry Eleveld interviewed Senator Mark Udall, who actually has been a fierce advocate for us on Capitol Hill. Udall sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has been one of the leaders on DADT repeal. The interview is worth a read. But, several questions stuck out for me. This one:

There is this talk of potentially stripping the repeal measure from the bill and passing the NDAA without it. In your opinion, is there any scenario under which you could get “don’t ask, don’t tell” through if it’s not attached to the Defense bill?

I don’t think there is, but I always believe hope springs eternal. I do think the best way to move this forward is in the NDAA and I do worry that if we don’t formalize the repeal process in statute now that we may not have this opportunity for a number of years in the future. If you listen to Sec. [Robert] Gates and Adm. [Mike] Mullen, they want the repeal in law, they want the Congress to have the final say. This is the most appropriate way to repeal an outdated policy that undercuts our national security.

That should help shut down the inane, counter-productive strategy concocted by the Palm Center, which no one can makes sense of.

And these two:

Do you get the sense that the White House is actively involved here? Have you spoken with them, and do you get the sense that they are having conversations with other senators?

I believe that a number of senators who are on the fence would benefit greatly from hearing directly from the president, the Secretary of Defense, and the from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs on the importance of passing the Defense bill and, included in that, the repeal provision.

That would be helpful. I don’t know whether they are doing that, but I’ve been weighing in on a series of letters and comments and outreach efforts to the White House, to other senators, and to the general public. So that would be helpful.

But you haven’t spoken with the White House directly?

I have not specifically spoken to the White House.

Still waiting for that promised White House strategy. Not seeing it.


—  admin

DADT: Log Cabin’ers Make Their Next Move, to the Supreme Court


Guestblogger Ari Ezra Waldman is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. After practicing in New York for five years and clerking at a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., Ari is now on the faculty at California Western School of Law in San Diego, California. His areas of expertise are criminal law, criminal procedure, LGBT law and law and economics. Ari will be writing biweekly posts on law and various LGBT issues. 

Follow Ari on Twitter at @ariezrawaldman.

Supremes Today, the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), through their attorneys at White & Case LLP, filed an application (read it, AFTER THE JUMP) with the Supreme Court to vacate the stay that the Ninth Circuit placed on Judge Virginia Phillips's decision that found the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law (DADT) unconstitutional. It was their next move and a good one, but the odds of success aren't great. This short post will summarize LCR's arguments and answer a few questions about what happened today and how this will unfold in the next few days/weeks.

First, some background. As you know, about ten days after Judge Virginia Phillips declared DADT unconstitutional, she issued a worldwide injunction barring enforcement of the law. The government asked her for a stay on that order pending appeal, meaning that the government asked her to keep the status quo — keep DADT operational — as the case goes up the chain. In a well-reasoned opinion, she declined. The government then asked the Ninth Circuit — the next highest court — for a stay, and it was eventually granted. Practically, that meant that as the case goes on, DADT is still a good law.

What LCR filed today was its request to the Supreme Court — the next highest court above the Ninth Circuit — to undo what the Ninth Circuit did, to "vacate" the stay granted by the Ninth Circuit. If LCR wins, the stay would be lifted and Judge Phillips's injunction that would order the military to accept openly gay and lesbian individual into the service.

Notably, this dispute isn't about the merits of DADT, that is, we're not talking about whether DADT is unconstitutional, we're just talking about holding off on implementing the order while the appeal is ongoing.

LCR deserves credit not only for bringing this case in the first place, but also for noticing the legal failings of the Ninth Circuit's order granting a stay and for its strong advocacy. So, what is the LCR's argument here?

At the center of LCR's argument to the Supreme Court is that the Ninth Circuit "abused its discretion" when it granted a stay based on incorrect reasoning and a refusal to use the proper legal test for stays. An "abuse of discretion" is a tough standard to meet simply because appellate courts have discretion to issue stays. But what they don't have discretion to do is to grant stays without requiring the party seeking the stay to prove, among other things, a "likelihood of success on the merits." All that means is that in order to properly get the stay at the Ninth Circuit, the government had to prove that it was likely to win its appeal on the merits, likely to keep DADT as good law. The Ninth Circuit, LCR argues, didn't really do that. Nor did the Ninth Circuit engage in the required balancing of harms. Before getting a stay, the government was also supposed to show that any hardship to the military or the government if there were no stay would outweigh any hardship to LCR with a stay. Finally, LCR points out that the Ninth Circuit accepted the government's injury argument based on mere speculation rather than actual evidence.

LCR's argument makes a lot of sense to me, especially since the Ninth Circuit apparently justified its stay on Judge Phillips's decision being at odds with other court decisions on DADT and generally failed to require the government to justify a stay. A stay is an example of "extraordinary relief," meaning that you don't get it just because you want it, you have to prove a lot — meet a "heavy burden" — to get it. At the Ninth Circuit, the government arguably did not meet that burden.

In its brief, LCR goes through the proper test for a stay and shows how the Ninth Circuit failed. The government had to show it was likely to succeed on the merits, but its arguments in that regard basically referred to previous court decisions upholding DADT. I've always found this part of the stay test to be tough to prove one way or another. Likelihood of success is supposed to mean "more than likely", but courts issue stays even when the moving party shows a "colorable" argument on the merits — namely, an argument that makes sense and could win. LCR's brief has it right, but the vagaries of this element make it hard to win here.

The Ninth Circuit's most striking error was its utter failure to balance the hardships to the parties before granting a stay. The government had to show that without a stay, it would suffer serious and "irreparable" harm. But the court then had to balance any of those harms against any harm that LCR and its members would feel without a stay AND the harms that would befall the military with a stay. How does that make sense? The government argued that the military needed an orderly disposition to DADT and that an abrupt end would be disruptive. But, LCR showed at trial, and on motion to the Ninth Circuit, that the military is harmed every day DADT is in place. The Ninth Circuit failed to give weight to those injuries, and it let the government get by with only administrative and organizational harms that were, in any event, purely speculative. The government offered no real evidence of the administrative difficulties and administrative harms ever outweigh injuries to constitutional rights. LCR has a strong and persuasive argument here.

Arguably, the story should end here. Failure to use the proper standard and use of speculative evidence is enough to vacate the stay. But, the Ninth Circuit also justified its stay based on the presumptive constitutionality of Congressional actions and the necessary deference that we give the military and to Congress when legislating about the military. It seems like this is a catch all — namely, given that we give the military a lot of leeway and freedom from the courts, we should just defer to it all the time. But, LCR is right to point out that while deference here is undisputed, that deference does not obviate the court's responsibility to conduct the proper balancing, follow settled precedent and consider all rights and harms before granting a stay.

There's more in LCR's brief, of course. For example, it criticizes the Ninth Circuit for suggesting it had to follow the decisions of its sister circuits (when it clearly does not) and, in any event, those other decisions are either outdated or not relevant. Suffice it to say, this brief is not cookie cutter. White & Case attorneys did a good job finding specific errors in the Ninth Circuit's process in granting the stay in addition to the substantive law. This may carry weight.

May is the operative word. While it should be the rule that the party seeking the stay has the heavier burden, when the party seeking the stay is the government and when the case involves a politically charged act of Congress, formal rules tend to bend to political realities. Unquestionably, courts are more willing to grant stays to the government in hot political cases. That doesn't make it right, it's just the way it is.

Still, if any brief was going to be successful, it's this one. I eagerly anticipate the next steps, with guarded optimism.

After the jump, some answers to anticipated questions, and the application itself.

Continue reading Log Cabin'ers Make Their Next Move AFTER THE JUMP

Why was the brief directed to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy?

Technically, the LCR asked Justice Kennedy to vacate the Ninth Circuit's stay. Each justice is given responsibility to deal with applications like this one and emergency motions and appeals over a particular circuit. Justice Ginsburg, for example, supervises the Second Circuit; Justice Kagan gets to oversee emergency appeals from the Sixth and Seventh Circuits; and so on. Justice Kennedy could decide this matter on his own, or he could refer the LCR's application to the entire Supreme Court. He has complete discretion here.

What happens next?

Justice Kennedy could rule on the application tomorrow, next week, next month or whenever. He could also request that the government file a brief in response, giving them a chance to get their voices heard. Again, Justice Kennedy has complete discretion here. It's good to be a Supreme Court justice!

If the stay is vacated…

then the military will once again have to start accepting openly gay and lesbian individuals into the service and would not be able to enforce the law against any service member currently in the armed forces. The appeal about whether DADT is unconstitutional would still go on, but it would go on while openly gay service members are free to serve.

If the stay is upheld…

then, DADT can still be enforced — albeit under the restrictions recently imposed by the administration — while the appeal goes on up the system.

If you have any other questions, let me know!

Here's the application itself:

Application to Vacate

Towleroad News #gay

—  admin

LGBT activists targeting Rep. George Miller over failure to move ENDA

Promises have been made. Promises haven’t been kept. There have been lots of promises on ENDA.

While members of Congress are asking us to help them keep their jobs, they’re not doing much to help LGBT Americans keep their jobs. ENDA isn’t moving, despite repeated commitments from leading Democrats to move the legislation.

So, tonight, Rep. George Miller, the Chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, will be hearing from LGBT activists on ENDA. From Chris Johnson at the Washington Blade:

Activists affiliated with GetEQUAL were set on Thursday to interrupt a debate between Rep. George Miller (D-Calif) and his Republican opponent in an effort to push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

According to a statement, GetEQUAL was set to stage an act of non-violent, civil disobedience during the debate between Miller and GOP candidate Rick Tubbs at the Travis Credit Union Auditorium in Vacaville, Calif.

Protesters were set to silently walk to the front of the auditorium holding a sign reading: “Miller Markup Employment Non Discrimination Act Now.”

Set to work in conjunction with GetEQUAL was One Struggle One Fight, another LGBT civil disobedience organization, and Pride at Work, an LGBT constituency group of the AFL-CIO.

Miller has made promises that haven’t been kept. Chris linked to this Blade article from March 18, 2010:

Moments after the arrested protesters were taken away, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) was seen walking along a nearby street. He chairs the House Education & Labor Committee, which is handling ENDA. Asked by DC Agenda when ENDA would advance to a markup, Miller replied, “Right after health care.”

Health care passed in the House on March 22, 2010.

There’s not much time left to pass ENDA this year. And, as noted in the post below, DADT appears to be in peril. And, Democrats wonder why the base isn’t enthusiastic.

We’re all supposed to do everything we can to make sure these “supportive” members of Congress keep their jobs. It’s really a one-way relationship.

But, sure looks like GetEQUAL and its allies aren’t going to be silent. I’m thinking things could get interesting.


—  John Wright