>> GAY NEWS: GOP takes House, Democrats retain Senate — Key Races Wrap-up HERE <<
WATCH: CNN psychologist SCOLDS mom for 'outing' son.
NASA probe meets comet.
Rudy Giuliani: GOP should 'ease up' on gay rights, repeal DADT.
WATCH: Sarah Palin's new ad.
Ari Ezra Waldman is a 2002 graduate of Harvard College and a 2005 graduate of Harvard Law School. After practicing in New York for five years and clerking at a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., Ari is now on the faculty at California Western School of Law in San Diego, California. His areas of expertise are criminal law, criminal procedure, LGBT law and law and economics. Ari will be writing biweekly posts on law and various LGBT issues.
Follow Ari on Twitter at @ariezrawaldman.
Today, the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), through their attorneys at White & Case LLP, filed an application (read it, AFTER THE JUMP) with the Supreme Court to vacate the stay that the Ninth Circuit placed on Judge Virginia Phillips's decision that found the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law (DADT) unconstitutional. It was their next move and a good one, but the odds of success aren't great. This short post will summarize LCR's arguments and answer a few questions about what happened today and how this will unfold in the next few days/weeks.
First, some background. As you know, about ten days after Judge Virginia Phillips declared DADT unconstitutional, she issued a worldwide injunction barring enforcement of the law. The government asked her for a stay on that order pending appeal, meaning that the government asked her to keep the status quo -- keep DADT operational -- as the case goes up the chain. In a well-reasoned opinion, she declined. The government then asked the Ninth Circuit -- the next highest court -- for a stay, and it was eventually granted. Practically, that meant that as the case goes on, DADT is still a good law.
What LCR filed today was its request to the Supreme Court -- the next highest court above the Ninth Circuit -- to undo what the Ninth Circuit did, to "vacate" the stay granted by the Ninth Circuit. If LCR wins, the stay would be lifted and Judge Phillips's injunction that would order the military to accept openly gay and lesbian individual into the service.
Notably, this dispute isn't about the merits of DADT, that is, we're not talking about whether DADT is unconstitutional, we're just talking about holding off on implementing the order while the appeal is ongoing.
LCR deserves credit not only for bringing this case in the first place, but also for noticing the legal failings of the Ninth Circuit's order granting a stay and for its strong advocacy. So, what is the LCR's argument here?
At the center of LCR's argument to the Supreme Court is that the Ninth Circuit "abused its discretion" when it granted a stay based on incorrect reasoning and a refusal to use the proper legal test for stays. An "abuse of discretion" is a tough standard to meet simply because appellate courts have discretion to issue stays. But what they don't have discretion to do is to grant stays without requiring the party seeking the stay to prove, among other things, a "likelihood of success on the merits." All that means is that in order to properly get the stay at the Ninth Circuit, the government had to prove that it was likely to win its appeal on the merits, likely to keep DADT as good law. The Ninth Circuit, LCR argues, didn't really do that. Nor did the Ninth Circuit engage in the required balancing of harms. Before getting a stay, the government was also supposed to show that any hardship to the military or the government if there were no stay would outweigh any hardship to LCR with a stay. Finally, LCR points out that the Ninth Circuit accepted the government's injury argument based on mere speculation rather than actual evidence.
LCR's argument makes a lot of sense to me, especially since the Ninth Circuit apparently justified its stay on Judge Phillips's decision being at odds with other court decisions on DADT and generally failed to require the government to justify a stay. A stay is an example of "extraordinary relief," meaning that you don't get it just because you want it, you have to prove a lot -- meet a "heavy burden" -- to get it. At the Ninth Circuit, the government arguably did not meet that burden.
In its brief, LCR goes through the proper test for a stay and shows how the Ninth Circuit failed. The government had to show it was likely to succeed on the merits, but its arguments in that regard basically referred to previous court decisions upholding DADT. I've always found this part of the stay test to be tough to prove one way or another. Likelihood of success is supposed to mean "more than likely", but courts issue stays even when the moving party shows a "colorable" argument on the merits -- namely, an argument that makes sense and could win. LCR's brief has it right, but the vagaries of this element make it hard to win here.
The Ninth Circuit's most striking error was its utter failure to balance the hardships to the parties before granting a stay. The government had to show that without a stay, it would suffer serious and "irreparable" harm. But the court then had to balance any of those harms against any harm that LCR and its members would feel without a stay AND the harms that would befall the military with a stay. How does that make sense? The government argued that the military needed an orderly disposition to DADT and that an abrupt end would be disruptive. But, LCR showed at trial, and on motion to the Ninth Circuit, that the military is harmed every day DADT is in place. The Ninth Circuit failed to give weight to those injuries, and it let the government get by with only administrative and organizational harms that were, in any event, purely speculative. The government offered no real evidence of the administrative difficulties and administrative harms ever outweigh injuries to constitutional rights. LCR has a strong and persuasive argument here.
Arguably, the story should end here. Failure to use the proper standard and use of speculative evidence is enough to vacate the stay. But, the Ninth Circuit also justified its stay based on the presumptive constitutionality of Congressional actions and the necessary deference that we give the military and to Congress when legislating about the military. It seems like this is a catch all -- namely, given that we give the military a lot of leeway and freedom from the courts, we should just defer to it all the time. But, LCR is right to point out that while deference here is undisputed, that deference does not obviate the court's responsibility to conduct the proper balancing, follow settled precedent and consider all rights and harms before granting a stay.
There's more in LCR's brief, of course. For example, it criticizes the Ninth Circuit for suggesting it had to follow the decisions of its sister circuits (when it clearly does not) and, in any event, those other decisions are either outdated or not relevant. Suffice it to say, this brief is not cookie cutter. White & Case attorneys did a good job finding specific errors in the Ninth Circuit's process in granting the stay in addition to the substantive law. This may carry weight.
May is the operative word. While it should be the rule that the party seeking the stay has the heavier burden, when the party seeking the stay is the government and when the case involves a politically charged act of Congress, formal rules tend to bend to political realities. Unquestionably, courts are more willing to grant stays to the government in hot political cases. That doesn't make it right, it's just the way it is.
Still, if any brief was going to be successful, it's this one. I eagerly anticipate the next steps, with guarded optimism.
After the jump, some answers to anticipated questions, and the application itself.
Continue reading Log Cabin'ers Make Their Next Move AFTER THE JUMP...
Continue reading "DADT: Log Cabin'ers Make Their Next Move, to the Supreme Court"
Posted 6:14 PM EST by Ari Ezra Waldman in Ari Ezra Waldman, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Log Cabin Republicans, Military, News | Permalink
| Comments (15)
Looks like love is in the air. Check it out, AFTER THE JUMP...
Continue reading "Watch: Glee's All-Guy Teenage Dream"
Posted 5:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in Chris Colfer, Glee, News | Permalink
| Comments (59)
DANCING WITH THE STARS: Israeli same-sex couple perform.
ICE CREAM TRUCK, PHILLY STYLE: The Cazwell track gets a parody. Details here.
SOFIA VERGARA: Her Ellen hidden camera prank.
THAT'S GAY: Bryan Safi takes on reality show judges, in InfoMania's first segment taped before a live audience.
For previous Guides to the Tube, click HERE.
Posted 5:00 PM EST by Andy Towle in Bryan Safi, Cazwell, Dance, Israel, News, Towleroad Guide to the Tube | Permalink
| Comments (4)
Exit poll: Nearly one-third of gays voted for GOP.
Nancy Pelosi to run for House Minority Leader: "Driven by the urgency of creating jobs & protecting #hcr, #wsr, Social Security & Medicare, I am running for Dem Leader."
Harry Potter blamed for owl crisis in India: "Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has blamed fans of Harry Potter for the demise of wild owls in the country as children seek to emulate the boy wizard by taking the birds as pets."
Australian rugby player in dog oral sex scandal.
Aide to Belgian archbishop resigns: "The spokesman for the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium, Archbishop André-Joseph Léonard, quit Tuesday, saying he could no longer speak for a man who had spoken harshly of AIDS and homosexuality and sympathized with some pedophile priests."
Jake Gyllenhaal turns it on for the premiere of Love and Other Drugs.
Chicago's Howard Brown clinic in danger: "The alleged mismanagement of millions of dollars in grant money associated with a decades-long study of men infected with HIV has left the Howard Brown Health Center, one of the country's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender health care organizations, in dire financial shape, officials said today...needs to raise $500,000 before the end of the year or it may cease operations."
Flipping Out's Trace Lehnhoff dresses up as 'Guy with iPhone' for Halloween.
Watch: Meryl Streep and Lisa Kudrow team up for Web Therapy.
Kellan Lutz tries the 'clothes on' thing for a change.
San Francisco still a tough place for gay teens.
Donald Trump tries to out contestant on The Apprentice: "You never know, and who cares, right, David? I know guys who were married for 20 years, they left with a guy, I mean, they liked a guy, so you know—right David? Are you sure you don’t want to come out?"
LOGO's A-List casting a net for vapid queens from Los Angeles and Dallas.
Vanderbilt University fraternity Beta Upsilon Chi rejects two members over sexual orientation: “(President Wigger) said that someone had approached the officer corps and suggested that I might be struggling with homosexuality. He would not tell me who told the officer corps, or when, or on what basis my sexuality had come into question, but said that the entire officer corps had been apprised of this person's suspicion..."
Gus van Sant gets Michael Pitt in the sand for Vman.
Video tour of Six Flags New Orleans, shuttered since Katrina.
If I would want anyone to teach me to make castanets, it'd be Amy Sedaris.
Obama reflects on his problems in 60 minutes interview: "I think that over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn't just legislation. That it's a matter of persuading people."
Zach Galifianakis upset that his days as a gay sex object are waning: "Staring out the window of Abbot's Habit, the performer pondered seeing his 'ugly mug' on billboards all over town and the 12-year span when nobody knew or cared who Galifianakis was in Hollywood. He also considered the negative impact of gaining so much weight — at least in terms of winning amorous attention at a certain Venice watering hole. 'There's a bar around here that I used to go to, Roosterfish. It's a gay bar,' Galifianakis said. 'I used to go because I liked to get hit on, even though I'm a straight guy. And now it never happens anymore!...I mean, because of me gaining 25 pounds? Really frustrating.'"
Posted 3:30 PM EST by Andy Towle | Permalink
| Comments (20)
Famous Canadians (including Rick Mercer, Rex Harrington, Diane Flacks, Tommy Smythe, Enza Anderson, the cast of MTV's 1g5g, Joeffer Caoc, David Dixon, Deb Pearce, and Peter Fallico), Michigan Law students, New York Times contributor Linda Hirshman, and teens from Connecticut's The Studio at New Canaan lend their voices to the "It Gets Better" project.
For recent Guides to the Tube, click HERE.
Posted 2:45 PM EST by Andy Towle in Bullying, Canada, Connecticut, Michigan, News, Towleroad Guide to the Tube | Permalink
| Comments (1)
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely, without pay, for not disclosing contributions to the campaigns of three Democrats:
"'I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay,' MSNBC president Phil Griffin said in a statement."
"MSNBC host Keith Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election — a potential violation of NBC ethics policies. Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s 'Countdown' show...NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover."
Posted 2:10 PM EST by Andy Towle in Democratic Party, Keith Olbermann, News | Permalink
| Comments (35)
Recent Comments