Posted by Dale Carpenter:
Ninth Circuit denies *en banc* review of DADT case:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_30-2008_12_06.shtml#1228498920


   Last May a panel of the Ninth Circuit called into question the
   constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the federal law under
   which the military discharges personnel known to be gay. The panel did
   not actually hold DADT unconstitutional but announced a heightened
   scrutiny standard applicable to the policy based on the Supreme
   Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas. It then remanded the case to
   the district court for further fact-finding to determine whether the
   policy could survive the heightened scrutiny. [1]Orin, Eugene, and I
   offered some thoughts about the decision in a series of posts at the
   time.

   Now the [2]Ninth Circuit has refused to hear the case en banc, with
   six judges dissenting. In his dissent, Judge O'Scannlain emphasized
   the narrow context and reach of Lawrence. Judge Kleinfeld, in a
   separate dissent, emphasized the traditional deference due to Congress
   and the President in military matters. Finally, Judge Kozinski
   pronounced himself agnostic on the merits but believed the case was
   important enough that it should be heard by the full court.

   The question now, as back in May, is what happens next. At this point,
   the case would go back to the district court for factual development
   and final decision on the merits. Alternatively, the Supreme Court
   could accept review of the case if the Bush and/or Obama
   administration decide to press it.

   Left to its own devices, I doubt the Obama administration would pursue
   the case at this point, but would prefer to preserve its options --
   political and legal -- for the future. Obama himself opposes DADT and
   might like to see it held unconstitutional, but I'm guessing he'd
   rather not have the issue take center-stage via a showdown in the
   Supreme Court in the immediate future. I also doubt the current court
   would hold DADT unconstitutional, and a ruling in favor of it might
   actually politically entrench it for a few more years. [3]Others have
   also expressed doubts about the Obama Justice Department pushing the
   case to the Supreme Court.

   On the other hand, if the Bush administration decided to file a cert
   petition the Obama DOJ would be put in the difficult position of
   having either to defend the constitutionality of a policy the
   President opposes on the merits or withdrawing the petition in the
   early weeks of his presidency. The latter course would also present
   public-relations problems reminiscent of the early days of the Clinton
   administration. But withdrawing a cert petition might not be as
   politically risky as it seems because the Ninth Circuit hasn't
   actually held that DADT is unconstitutional.

   Indeed, some factual development in the district court showing the
   weaknesses, inconsistencies, and harm caused by the policy might be
   helpful in laying the groundwork for a legislative repeal of DADT in
   Congress before the Supreme Court ever has a chance to hear the case
   -- years down the road. Additionally, Obama will need time to
   establish his bona fides as a tough Commander-in-Chief -- for example,
   by bombing a country or two, or by supporting the limited use of
   "enhanced interrogation" techniques or broader domestic surveillance,
   or by delaying his 16-month timetable for Iraq withdrawal -- before he
   can push legislatively for what will be a controversial change. He
   will need the acquiescence if not the support of the Joint Chiefs of
   Staff for such a change and he won't get that until he establishes
   some credibility with them. The Ninth Circuit's decision to kick the
   can back to the district court, rather than address it with the weight
   of the full court, may buy some needed time.

References

   1. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1211387521.shtml
   2. 
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61FF31DCBE6C92E88257514007D7505/$file/0635644o.pdf?openelement
   3. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/05/MNHS14IC2O.DTL

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to