Judge rules DADT unconstitutional

National, Politics 1 Minute

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a judge has ruled the military’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips granted a request for an injunction halting the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military.

Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

In a statement, the Log Cabin Republicans celebrated the ruling.

“As an American, a veteran and an Army reserve officer, I am proud the court ruled that the arcane Don’t Ask Don’t Tell statute violates the Constitution,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper.  “Today, the ruling is not just a win for Log Cabin Republican servicemembers, but all American servicemembers.”

Some other reactions to the ruling can be found here.

With this ruling (here), the ball is clearly in the court of the Obama administration. Will the U.S. Justice Department appeal – and run the risk of (further) angering the LGBT community? If I had to guess, I’d have to answer that question in the affirmative.

Published

11 thoughts on “Judge rules DADT unconstitutional”

  1. I am uncomfortable with civilian courts weighing in on military policy. The military is a culture seperate and apart from civil society; rules and regulations should come from the commander in chief and his military hierarchy, not a judge who has most likely never served a day in the military. Seems to me thia is a dangerous precedent that could lead to other rulings on issues such as training practices, promotions, etc. I’d like to know if civilian courts have ruled on other military issues in the past.

    1. You’re exactly right.

      And this ruling STILL won’t give the LGBT community what they want. It’s not like they’ll be allowed to start signing up today.

      I really question the wisdom of everyone who wants this policy to go away RIGHT NOW. What exactly will that accomplish?

        1. Took it last semester; got an I-still finishing my paper on the tea party as an interest group.

          While I’m finishing, perhaps you can go back and review what happened the last time the military made a major social change with little to no planning (hint: Truman).

          Then maybe you’ll see why DoD needs time to figure out how to do this correctly. I have no doubt integration will happen, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t adversely affect the force.

          Just declaring it unconstitutional and opening the gates ain’t it.

  2. “I’d like to know if civilian courts have ruled on other military issues in the past.”

    1. …If you’re interested in something, other people shouldn’t have to Google it for you.

    2. Yes. It has happened before. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld leaps to mind most-immediately.

    1. I don’t really think Hamdan applies, since the Court ruled that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to institute the tribunals without Congressional authorization. Since DADT is Congress’s policy, not simple an Executive or military policy, and since the DADT policy violates neither the UCMJ nor any treaty, none of the Hamden arguments for Court intervention apply to DADT.

      1. Hamdan’s not a precedent for overturning DADT, and it is not cited as such in the opinion, but it is nevertheless an example of a civilian court ruling on military procedures.

        1. Hamdam overturned the military commissions enacted by the Bush Administration, not the CONDUCT of those commissions. In other words, the ruling only looked at whether the commissions could exist, not how they were conducted.

          So the procedures of the commissions never were an issue.

Comments are closed.