Court Opinion

ID: 9852426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:30:13.657189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:27.651057
License: Public Domain

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge,
with whom Judges BEA and M. SMITH join, dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc:
The panel has done a fine job in an exceptionally difficult and fraught area of the law. And Major Witt’s case compellingly illustrates the sometimes arbitrary and destructive operation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. At the same time, Judge O’Scannlain raises serious doubts about the scope of Lawrence, and Judge Kleinfeld makes a strong case for deference to the political branches on military matters.
I’m not sure who’s right, but I am sure that this is the type of case we need to take en banc because it “involves a question of exceptional importance.” Fed. R.App. P. 35(a)(2). The deference due in the realm of military affairs, see, e.g., Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 365, — L.Ed.2d-(2008), reinforces the deference we owe to the political branches when they act in concert: “When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635, 72 S.Ct. 863, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring).
When we stand against the combined might of the other branches of government, we should ensure that our own authority is at its maximum. En banc rehearing — whatever the outcome — would have shown that we gave this matter the sustained attention it merits. Moreover, there is strength in numbers: The conclusions of an en banc court would reflect many more points of view and could not easily be dismissed as outliers.
Finally, there’s much to be said here for making haste slowly. Delaying disposition of the case while we reconsidered it en banc might have given the political branches a chance to revisit the DADT policy in light of experience over the last 15 years— including that in Major Witt’s case. Fed. R.App. P. 35(a)(2) is there for a reason and we would have been well advised to follow its directive. 15926