Obama administration stops defending DADT policy as constitutional

[FreeState]

Interesting... seems President Obama has turned a very welcome corner. Thank you Mr. President!

http://www.lgbtpov.com/2011/02/breaking-doj-asks-9th-circuit-to-reverse-judge-in-dadt-case/

Bulletin: LCR Attorney Says DOJ Brief in the DADT Case is a ‘Major Change in the Government’s Position’
by KAREN OCAMB on FEBRUARY 25, 2011 | 4:25 PM


Log Cabin Republicans attorney Dan Woods

UPDATE: Dan Woods, attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans, says this new DOJ brief is “is a major change in the government’s position.” The Justice Department just filed their 59-page brief in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v USA. According to attorney and SLDN boardmember Tom Carpenter, the DOJ asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the decision by District Court Judge Virginia Phillips, who has ruled that the antigay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional. The DOJ also asked the 9th Circuit to invalidate Phillip’s worldwide injunction against enforcement of DADT – which the 9th Circuit has stayed as the case continues. UPDATE: Dan Woods, lead attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans, just emailed this MAJOR UPDATE TO HIS EARLIER STATEMENT:

“The government’s brief is stunning for what it does not say. As we expected, it argues that Log Cabin Republicans lacked standing to bring the case and that Judge Phillips lacked authority to issue a world-wide injunction; Judge Phillips’s 85-page decision from October 2010 covered these points in great detail and we are confident that the government’s arguments on these points will be rejected. The government’s only other argument is that the recent repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was constitutional but that was not an issue tried before Judge Phillips and was never part of the government’s case before. The government’s brief does not address the due process or first amendment issues on which Judge Phillips based her decision or the standard of review applicable to our challenge to the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. By not arguing merits of the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the government’s brief, by its silence on these issues, is effectively conceding that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was and is unconstitutional. While it may be implicit, it is the first time in the six-plus-year history of the case that the government has not argued that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is constitutional. This is a major change in the government’s position.” (Emphasis mine)

Carpenter says:

“I concur with Dan, that the Government in its open brief concedes the unconstitutionality of DADT by omitting to even address Judge Phillips’ decision on the most important issue in the case.”

Earlier Woods wrote:

“Am just now reading it. As expected, the government argues about standing at the beginning and, at the end, argues that the worldwide injunction exceeded the court’s authority. No surprises in those sections. What is odd is section II. It does not appear to argue that DADT is or was constitutional. It does not address the due process or first amendment issues. It does not even address, as far as I have been able to tell so far, the government’s position on the appropriate standard of review. Instead, it argues that the orderly repeal process is constitutional, which was not an issue before Judge Phillips.”