31:
734:
271:
on the basis that "the Court made it abundantly clear that there are many types of sexual activity that are beyond the reach of that opinion" and that the "Act includes such other types of sexual activity. The Act provides for the separation of a service person who engages in a public homosexual act or who coerces another person to engage in a homosexual act", which are "expressly excluded from the liberty interest recognized by
279:
area of military affairs" and that the "deferential approach courts take when doing so is well established." Because "Congress articulated a substantial government interest for a law, and where the challenges in question implicate that interest, judicial intrusion simply not warranted", and the Court rejected the as-applied challenges.
321:
a homosexual, it would constitute a content-based speech restriction subject to strict scrutiny" and that "the availability of an administrative remedy does not defeat a First
Amendment claim that the government is systematically applying the Act in such a way that it unconstitutionally burdens protected speech".
320:
Judge Saris, a
District Court judge sitting on the Court of Appeals by designation, concurred with the majority regarding due process and equal protection, while dissenting with the rejection of the First Amendment challenge, because "if the Act were applied to punish statements about one's status as
278:
Turning to the plaintiffs' as-applied challenges, the Court recognized that the "Act, for example, could cover homosexual conduct occurring off base between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home." They also recognized that they were "reviewing an exercise of
Congressional judgment in the
270:
Balancing "the strength of the asserted interest ... against the degree of intrusion into the petitioners' private sexual life caused by the statute in order to determine whether the law was unconstitutionally applied", the Court evaluated the plaintiffs' facial due process claims and rejected them,
156:
Seven former members of the military discharged under the law filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts asking for an injunction for readmission into the military and prohibiting further enforcement of the law. The government filed for a motion to dismiss for failure to
311:
In addressing the First
Amendment claim, the Court noted that their "review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society." and because it was "thus aimed at eliminating
258:
can "only be squared with the
Supreme Court's acknowledgment of morality as a rational basis by concluding that a protected liberty interest was at stake, and therefore a rational basis for the law was not sufficient." It thus rejected the district court's view that
193:
recognized "a protected liberty interest for adults to engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy and applied a balancing of constitutional interests that defied either the rational basis or strict scrutiny label." In reaching this holding, the Court noted that
302:
Court explicitly declined to base its ruling on equal protection principles, even though that issue was presented". Because "Congress has put forward a non-animus based explanation for its decision to pass the Act", the Court rejected the equal protection claims.
287:
The Court then decided the issue of whether earlier
Supreme Court decisions held that sexual orientation was a suspect classification. In rejecting plaintiffs' arguments in favor of that, they noted that
719:
780:
470:
563:
312:
certain conduct or the possibility of certain conduct from occurring in the military environment, not at restricting speech", the First
Amendment claim was rejected.
224:
760:
500:
125:
41:
137:
133:
520:
164:
The case was heard on appeal by a three-judge panel of the First
Circuit Court of Appeals that issued its decision upholding DADT on July 9, 2008.
588:
691:
765:
218:
254:
had applied traditional rational basis review, "the convictions under the Texas statute would have been sustained", on the basis that
493:
422:
376:
775:
601:
785:
474:
Mary L. Bonauto and Gary D. Buseck, "Essay: At Least One Thing to Watch for in the First
Circuit's DOMA Case," May 11, 2011
738:
486:
577:
537:
557:
246:
as declining to recognize a protected liberty interest without ignoring the Court's statement that Justice Stevens'
30:
583:
770:
439:
669:
509:
334:
129:
353:
161:, upheld the act under rational basis review and granted the government's motion to dismiss the suit.
628:
594:
158:
679:
653:
200:
145:
623:
685:
674:
551:
643:
140:, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a
478:
8:
206:
416:
392:
370:
238:
157:
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On April 24, 2006, U.S. District Judge
177:
94:
90:
544:
697:
633:
426:
380:
232:"supports the recognition of a protected liberty interest". Third, it noted that
132:" (DADT) policy (Title 10, Section 654) against due process and equal protection
298:
nowhere suggested that the Court recognized a new suspect class", and that the "
290:
264:
98:
754:
648:
175:
In evaluating the substantive due process claim, the Court first looked over
141:
698:
Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America
618:
181:, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the Supreme Court case striking down convictions of
703:
212:
189:
law, to determine the appropriate standard of scrutiny. They held that
638:
124:, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008), is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the
720:
Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military
564:
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc.
429:
Via Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Accessed July 14, 2011
186:
282:
182:
354:"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Stands Despite Effort By Major Firms
508:
781:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit cases
294:, by its own terms, applied rational basis review", that "
398:
Via Cornell University Law School Accessed July 14, 2011
225:
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
333:
plaintiffs, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the
443:, 478 U.S. 186 at 214 (1986) (J. Stevens, dissenting)
126:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
250:dissent was controlling". Fourth it noted that if
242:in which he wrote that "it is impossible to read
136:challenges and a free speech challenge under the
752:
521:Sexual orientation in the United States military
472:Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review
761:United States substantive due process case law
692:United States Navy dog handler hazing scandal
494:
283:Equal Protection and suspect classification
167:
501:
487:
219:Carey v. Population Services International
29:
589:Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010
228:. Second, it noted that the language of
360:, June 10, 2008, accessed March 6, 2012
236:relied on Justice Stevens's dissent in
753:
602:Log Cabin Republicans v. United States
412:
410:
408:
406:
404:
369:Servicemembers Legal Defense Network:
482:
374:, 429 F. Supp 2d 385 (D. Mass. 2006)
766:United States LGBTQ rights case law
578:Witt v. Department of the Air Force
538:Holmes v. California National Guard
401:
13:
558:Military Readiness Enhancement Act
306:
14:
797:
464:
329:James E. Pietrangelo, one of the
113:Saris (concurring and dissenting)
733:
732:
324:
584:2010 State of the Union Address
438:Cornell University Law School:
151:
776:2008 in United States case law
457:, 129 S.Ct. 2763 (mem.) (2009)
448:
432:
386:
363:
347:
1:
670:Center for Military Readiness
420:, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008)
340:
383:, accessed February 25, 2012
337:. The petition was rejected
7:
335:United States Supreme Court
77:528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008)
24:Thomas Cook v. Robert Gates
10:
802:
315:
728:
712:
662:
611:
529:
516:
110:
105:
86:
81:
73:
65:
47:
37:
28:
23:
629:Murder of Barry Winchell
595:Collins v. United States
445:, accessed July 14, 2011
680:National Equality March
201:Griswold v. Connecticut
624:Margarethe Cammermeyer
786:Don't ask, don't tell
771:2008 in LGBTQ history
686:United States v. Choi
675:Servicemembers United
552:Able v. United States
510:Don't ask, don't tell
396:, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
159:George A. O'Toole Jr.
130:Don't ask, Don't tell
58:Robert Gates, et al.,
644:Malcom Gregory Scott
455:Pietrangelo v. Gates
267:standard of review.
207:Eisenstadt v. Baird
52:Thomas Cook at al.,
16:American legal case
441:Bowers v. Hardwick
425:2011-08-03 at the
379:2011-08-03 at the
239:Bowers v. Hardwick
748:
747:
394:Lawrence v. Texas
178:Lawrence v. Texas
128:that upheld the "
117:
116:
95:Levin H. Campbell
91:Jeffrey R. Howard
793:
736:
735:
545:McVeigh v. Cohen
503:
496:
489:
480:
479:
458:
452:
446:
436:
430:
414:
399:
390:
384:
372:Cook v. Rumsfeld
367:
361:
351:
168:Due Process and
148:classification.
101:(by designation)
82:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
801:
800:
796:
795:
794:
792:
791:
790:
751:
750:
749:
744:
724:
708:
658:
634:Darren Manzella
607:
525:
512:
507:
467:
462:
461:
453:
449:
437:
433:
427:Wayback Machine
415:
402:
391:
387:
381:Wayback Machine
368:
364:
352:
348:
343:
327:
318:
309:
307:First Amendment
285:
173:
154:
138:First Amendment
134:Fifth Amendment
112:
59:
57:
55:
53:
17:
12:
11:
5:
799:
789:
788:
783:
778:
773:
768:
763:
746:
745:
743:
742:
729:
726:
725:
723:
722:
716:
714:
710:
709:
707:
706:
701:
694:
689:
682:
677:
672:
666:
664:
660:
659:
657:
656:
654:Randy Phillips
651:
646:
641:
636:
631:
626:
621:
615:
613:
609:
608:
606:
605:
598:
591:
586:
581:
574:
567:
560:
555:
548:
541:
533:
531:
527:
526:
524:
523:
517:
514:
513:
506:
505:
498:
491:
483:
477:
476:
466:
465:External links
463:
460:
459:
447:
431:
400:
385:
362:
345:
344:
342:
339:
326:
323:
317:
314:
308:
305:
284:
281:
265:rational basis
172:
166:
153:
150:
115:
114:
108:
107:
103:
102:
99:Patti B. Saris
88:
87:Judges sitting
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
798:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
767:
764:
762:
759:
758:
756:
741:
740:
731:
730:
727:
721:
718:
717:
715:
711:
705:
702:
700:
699:
695:
693:
690:
688:
687:
683:
681:
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
667:
665:
661:
655:
652:
650:
649:Josh Seefried
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
630:
627:
625:
622:
620:
617:
616:
614:
610:
604:
603:
599:
597:
596:
592:
590:
587:
585:
582:
580:
579:
575:
573:
572:
571:Cook v. Gates
568:
566:
565:
561:
559:
556:
554:
553:
549:
547:
546:
542:
540:
539:
535:
534:
532:
528:
522:
519:
518:
515:
511:
504:
499:
497:
492:
490:
485:
484:
481:
475:
473:
469:
468:
456:
451:
444:
442:
435:
428:
424:
421:
419:
418:Cook v. Gates
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
397:
395:
389:
382:
378:
375:
373:
366:
359:
355:
350:
346:
338:
336:
332:
325:Cert petition
322:
313:
304:
301:
297:
293:
292:
280:
276:
274:
268:
266:
262:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
235:
231:
227:
226:
221:
220:
215:
214:
209:
208:
203:
202:
197:
192:
188:
184:
180:
179:
171:
165:
162:
160:
149:
147:
146:quasi-suspect
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:Cook v. Gates
109:
106:Case opinions
104:
100:
96:
92:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
61:
60:Defendants.
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
737:
696:
684:
619:Jase Daniels
600:
593:
576:
570:
569:
562:
550:
543:
536:
471:
454:
450:
440:
434:
417:
393:
388:
371:
365:
357:
349:
330:
328:
319:
310:
299:
295:
289:
286:
277:
272:
269:
263:applied the
260:
255:
251:
247:
243:
237:
233:
229:
223:
217:
211:
205:
199:
195:
190:
176:
174:
169:
163:
155:
152:Case history
120:
119:
118:
69:July 9, 2008
51:
18:
704:Palm Center
358:AmLaw Daily
213:Roe v. Wade
54:Plaintiffs,
755:Categories
341:References
198:relied on
639:Steve May
739:Category
713:See also
423:Archived
377:Archived
300:Lawrence
273:Lawrence
261:Lawrence
256:Lawrence
252:Lawrence
244:Lawrence
234:Lawrence
230:Lawrence
196:Lawrence
191:Lawrence
170:Lawrence
74:Citation
663:Related
316:Dissent
142:suspect
66:Decided
612:People
248:Bowers
222:, and
187:sodomy
111:Howard
296:Romer
291:Romer
183:Texas
38:Court
331:Cook
530:Law
275:."
185:'s
144:or
757::
403:^
356:,
216:,
210:,
204:,
97:,
93:,
56:v.
502:e
495:t
488:v
288:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
