Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59803192/LCR-v-USA-ORDER
Timestamp: 2014-04-24 19:15:41
Document Index: 309464871

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 530', '§ 654', '§ 530', '§ 654', '§ 530', '§ 654']

P. 1LCR v. USA - ORDERLCR v. USA - ORDERRatings: (0)|Views: 18,544|Likes: 1Published by Kathleen PerrinLCR v. USA (DADT case) Clerk ORDER - Appears to merits panel that U.S. not prepared to defend DADT, so within 10 days, government to advise the court whether it intends to submit a report to Congress indicating its decision to not defend; and parties ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as moot. Filed 07/11/11LCR v. USA (DADT case) Clerk ORDER - Appears to merits panel that U.S. not prepared to defend DADT, so within 10 days, government to advise the court whether it intends to submit a report to Congress indicating its decision to not defend; and parties ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as moot. Filed 07/11/11More info:Published by: Kathleen Perrin on Jul 11, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/59803192/LCR-v-USA-ORDER07/11/2011pdftextoriginal UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUITLOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non- profit corporation,Plaintiff - Appellee,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LEONPANETTA, Secretary of Defense, in hisofficial capacity,Defendants - Appellants. No. 10-56634D.C. No. 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-ECentral District of California,Los AngelesORDER LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS, a non- profit corporation,Plaintiff - Appellant,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LEONPANETTA, Secretary of Defense, in hisofficial capacity,Defendants - Appellees. No. 10-56813D.C. No. 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-ECentral District of California,Los AngelesAfter reviewing the briefs filed by the parties, it appears to the merits panelthat the United States is not prepared to defend the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. §
Case: 10-56634 07/11/2011 Page: 1 of 4 ID: 7814555 DktEntry: 112
2654, which provides for the policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces(i.e., Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell). The Government argues only that the Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (“Repeal Act”), Pub. L. No. 111-321, 124 Stat.3515 (2010), is constitutional. But the district court found § 654, not the RepealAct, unconstitutional. And § 654 remains the law of the land today, even though itis scheduled to be repealed once certain conditions are satisfied, which, as of thedate of this order, has apparently not yet occurred. Therefore, the central issue thiscourt must address on appeal is whether the district court properly held that § 654is unconstitutional. No party to this appeal has indicated an intention to defend theconstitutionality of § 654 or to argue that the constitutionality holding of thedistrict court should be reversed.The Government, of course, may refrain from defending the constitutionalityof “any provision of any Federal statute.” 28 U.S.C § 530D(a)(1)(B)(ii) (providingthat the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress outlining his decisionto refrain from defending a Federal statute);
Letter from Attorney Generalto Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011), filed as Attachment A tothe Motion of Appellee / Cross-Appellant Log Cabin Republicans to Vacate Stayof Injunction, Dkt. No. 107, (May 10, 2011). If the Government chooses not todefend the constitutionality of § 654, however, the court may allow amicus curiae
Case: 10-56634 07/11/2011 Page: 2 of 4 ID: 7814555 DktEntry: 112
3to participate in oral argument in support of constitutionality pursuant to FederalRule of Appellate Procedure 29(g).In light of the foregoing,(1) the Government is hereby ordered to advise the court whether it intendsto submit a report to Congress under § 530D(a)(1)(B)(ii) outlining its decision torefrain from defending § 654;(2) the Government is further ordered, if such report is to be submitted, toadvise whether it will do so within such time as to enable Congress to take actionto intervene in timely fashion in this proceeding, as provided in § 530D(b)(2);(3) the parties are ordered to show cause why this case should not bedismissed as moot, either immediately or upon such time as the President certifiesthat all conditions for the repeal of § 654 set forth in the Don’t Ask, Don’t TellRepeal Act have been satisfied.The responses to this order shall take the form of letters to the court nolonger than ten pages or 2800 words, and shall be submitted within ten days of thedate of this order.Parties who are registered for Appellate ECF must file the letter electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered
Case: 10-56634 07/11/2011 Page: 3 of 4 ID: 7814555 DktEntry: 112
Activity (11)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd noteLikeEmbedShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 thousand reads1 hundred readsLoad more
Recommended Doc 806
RecommendedDoc 806Kathleen PerrinProponents' Supplemental Brief in support of compelling return of the trial r...3:10-cv-01750 #103Equality Case FilesDoc #103 - BLAG Sur-Reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Jud...3:09-cv-02292 #812Equality Case Files Doc #81210-16696 #372Equality Case FilesDoc # 372 - Amicus Brief of Gage Raley in support of Proponents.