Â Â Â Â Judge Virginia Phillips of the Central District of California has issued an injunction prohibiting the United States from enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"Â anywhere in the world.
Â Â Â Â Judge Phillips based her original decision issued on September 9 on the ground that the law prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military violates both the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.Â The judge then asked the parties to debate how broad the injunction should be – whether it should protect only the gay and lesbian soldiers who brought this action, or whether it should pertain to all soldiers serving anywhere in the world.Â (I discussed that aspect of the case in a September 24 postÂ entitled Should the President Appeal a Judicial Ruling Striking Down DADT?Â ) Â In the ruling issued on October 12,Â Judge Phillips made her choice, stating that the court:
(1) DECLARES that the act known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"1 infringes the fundamental rights of United States servicemembers and prospective servicemembers and violates (a) the substantive due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (b) the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the Government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(2) PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense, their agents, servants, officers, employees, and attorneys, and all persons acting in participation or concert with them or under their direction or command, from enforcing or applying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act and implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command;
3) ORDERS Defendants United States of America and the Secretary of Defense immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act, or pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Â§ 654 or its implementing regulations, on or prior to the date of this Judgment.
Â Â Â Â In myÂ previous post about this case I took the position that the President should appeal the decision even though he agrees with it in order to defend the Rule of Law.Â In light of the broad scope of the judge's ruling, I believe that an appeal is even more imperative.Â
Â Â Â Â In a related development, Jeremy Pelofsky of Reuters reports that the Obama administration has appealed the decision of Judge Joseph Tauro striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional.Â I commented on Judge Tauro's decision in this post entitled Federal District Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional.Â Even though I am strongly opposed to DOMA and welcomed Judge Tauro's decision, I support the administration's decision to appeal the ruling.
Â Â Â Â Those of you who disagree – who take the position that the President does not have the duty to defend the constitutionality of a federal lawÂ to which he or sheÂ is opposedÂ – must be willing to accept the consequences of a political philosophy that does not respect the Rule of Law.Â If you believe that President Obama need not defend a law that he considers unconstitutional, then you must have had no legitimate complaint when the administration of President George W. Bush authorized cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners of war in violation of theÂ Geneva Convention and the Torture Act, laws that he thought unconstitutionally constrained the exercise of his powers as Commander-in-Chief.Â (That principle also applies to those of you who supported the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention – you could have no complaint if the Obama administration were to fail to appeal these decisions!)Â When a future administration refuses to defend or enforce a law that you support, including perhaps a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you must concede that that is within the prerogative of the President.Â
Â Â Â Â The only sure and confident protection for individual rights and the rights of minorities is the Rule of Law.Â The purpose of the gay rights movement like any otherÂ civil rights movement is to change the law – and once it is changed, it will have toÂ be obeyed.
Wilson Huhn teaches Constitutional Law at The University of Akron School of Law. Visit his website for background and information about the Constitution, as well as links to other sites devoted to Constitutional Law.