Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society

Federal Judge Imposes Nationwide Injunction of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

While the Obama Administration has announced an appeal in Massachusetts to reverse the victory with regard to same sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, California has upped the ante by imposing a nationwide injunction on the policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell– a move also opposed by the Obama Administration. The Administration is now likely to move to reverse this victory in California — further angering those “lethargic” liberals that the Administration has been pushing to work for the Democrats.


Phillips’ injunction for the first time would halt the obnoxious policy created by President Bill Clinton. The Obama Administration previously asked the judge not to enjoin the policy, which is viewed by civil libertarians as unconstitutional and unAmerican.

This case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

The injunction extends beyond the immediate parties in the case and could be challenged as excessive (as argued by the Obama Administration before the trial court). However, it is not unprecedented. Indeed, if the policy is unconstitutional, the court has good reason to enjoin it. Otherwise, it would require dozens of insular rulings to practically shut it down across the country. Generally, when a law is unconstitutional, it is struck down. In this case, the court did not want the military to continue to implement the policy on its own authority.

If true to its earlier filings in the case, the Obama Administration is likely to appeal the injunction and seek an appellate ruling to set it aside. That will only alienate civil libertarians and gay rights advocates further before the election. President Obama has proven to be a perfect nightmare on civil liberties. While often using rhetoric to denounce things like torture and DADT, President Obama has adopted many of the same policies as the Bush Administration and worked in court to extinguish dozens of civil liberties cases.

Indeed, while many have expressed surprise that Bush is re-gaining popularity in the polls, it should be little surprise since many of Obama’s policies have vindicated Bush. From privacy cases to off-shore drilling to assassination lists, Obama has affirmed the positions of Bush over objections from civil libertarians, liberals, and other groups.

Now, weeks before the November elections, the Administration is opposing a core constituency in seeking to preserve a policy of discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens. The Administration previously (and successfully) sought to extinguish dozens of privacy lawsuits as well as actions seeking review of torture and assassination policies. Now, on both coasts, it is seeking to limit or reverse victories in favor of same-sex couples and gay military personnel. That is likely to convert that “lethargy” to anger for many liberals who have complained of the betrayal of core values by President Obama.

Source: WSJ

96 thoughts on “Federal Judge Imposes Nationwide Injunction of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”

  2. “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and that the Government bears the burden of showing their constitutionality. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 322 F.3d 240.

    Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest… The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

    I copied the Supreme Court quotes above from my unopposed brief filed 7/26/10. See http://www.rightscase.com. That was Sieverding v. DOJ, 10-5149, Fed. Ct of Appeals D of Columbia. one of the Privacy Act complaints that Professor Turley is referring to. I was imprisoned by DOJ in 2005-2007 without criminal prosecution. I filed suit against DOJ in 2009 and the litigation was during the Obama Administration.

  3. (Although, let’s be fair to Clinton. DADT seems backward now, but it was a vast improvement over the system before — actively seeking out and removing homosexuals in the ranks — and a compromise he could, and did, successfully push through Congress. Open ranks wasn’t on the table in 1994.)

  4. A policy created by a Democrat, defended by another Democrat, challenged by a group of Republicans… And it’s DADT. Did I get moved to Bizarro World when I wasn’t looking?

  5. President Obama should act like a man–just as Harry Truman did in 1948 when he signed an executive order ending segregation in the armed forces. Obama should sign an executive order ending DADT. Simple as that.

    JUST DO IT, Mr. President!!!!!

  7. Tony C.
    1, October 13, 2010 at 9:03 am
    …

    The oath of defending the Constitution supercedes mere protocol, and the DOJ and Obama break no law by claiming the judge was right, they were wrong, and they will accept the judgment as written.

    =============================================================

    Yep … and it is that simple

  9. So who is making book on who the theocratic fascists are going to start rounding up for “re-education” camps first?

  11. Bdaman:

    yesterday you told Bluoise your updates were out and directed her to a Surf Site and said your report was at the bottom.

    Is that really your report? I thought it was quite good.

  14. @Buckeye: First, “generally obligated” does not mean “legally obligated,” and they *already* defended the law in court, they are not obligated in any way to appeal that decision.

    Further, they took an oath (ha!) to uphold the Constitution, and they can read the decision and agree that the law violates the 1st and 5th amendments, and should be struck down.

    The oath of defending the Constitution supercedes mere protocol, and the DOJ and Obama break no law by claiming the judge was right, they were wrong, and they will accept the judgment as written.

  15. Sorry I had to laugh !!!!!!!

    This case was brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group.

    Aunt Jemima is probably turnin over in her grave.

    Want some syrup to go wit dat pancake.

    http://www.auntjemima.com/

  16. If that’s a real uniform, but not a real general, what laws apply? Or is it called “artistic license”?

  18. The WSJ article states:

    [The order poses a dilemma for the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress. They want to undo the 1993 law, but Senate Republicans blocked an effort last month to vote on a repeal.

    The administration now must decide whether to appeal Judge Phillips’s ruling, which establishes by judicial fiat the result Democrats were seeking through legislative action. The Justice Department is generally obligated to defend laws passed by Congress, and an appeal is likely. ]

    The Obama administration and the Democrats want to repeal DADT but the Senate Republicans won’t let them do it.

    The Justice Department is generally obligated to defend laws passed by Congress so should appeal.

    So how did the Obama administration get to be in the wrong here? What am I missing?

  19. “You don’t have to holler — we already hear you.”

    Funny, I thought the President meant, “We’re already working to fix things” not “We have your phone bugged.”

  20. Two more years of this complete fraud, abetted by the corporate owned Congress. I’m already angry.

Comments are closed.