Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America
| Log Cabin Republicans v. United States | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Full case name | Log Cabin Republicans, a non-profit corporation v. United States of America and Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, in his official capacity, |
| Decided | September 29 2011 |
| Citation(s) | 658 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | 716 F.Supp.2d 884 (C.D. Cal. 2010) |
| Subsequent action(s) | Rehearing en banc denied (Nov. 2011) |
| Holding | |
| The legislative repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell rendered the case moot, and the decision of the lower court finding DADT unconstitutional is vacated. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Arthur Lawrence Alarcon, Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam. | |
| Concurrence | Diarmuid O'Scannlain |
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States was a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 654, commonly known as don't ask, don't tell (DADT), which excludes homosexuals from openly serving in the United States military. The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), an organization composed of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Republicans, brought the suit on behalf of LCR members who serve or served in the military and were subject to DADT.
LCR initially filed the suit, a facial challenge to the statute, in 2004. A bench trial began on July 13, 2010, before Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Justice Department had unsuccessfully sought to have the suit dismissed, arguing that as long as Congress had a rational basis for passing DADT in 1993, then it is constitutional. The Justice Department also asserted at trial that LCR did not have standing to challenge the law. LCR argued that DADT violates constitutional guarantees of due process and free speech.
Phillips advised the parties pre-trial that she would not apply rational basis review, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, to the case. Instead, in accordance with the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of the Air Force, she would apply intermediate scrutiny, meaning to be constitutional, DADT must significantly further an important governmental interest that can be advanced in no other way.
...
Wikipedia