National

Obama administration seeks stay on ‘Don’t Ask’ case

Congressional votes are cause for pause, brief says

Published

16 years ago

June 17, 2010

President Barack Obama’s administration is asking a federal court to halt proceedings on a legal challenge to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of White House)

The Obama administration is asking a federal court to hold off on advancing a legal challenge to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until Congress completes legislative action on the issue this year.

In a reply brief issued June 9 in Log Cabin v. United States, the Justice Department argues the U.S. District Court of Central California should defer adjudicating the case in light of recent votes in the House and Senate on measures that would lead to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The pending case, initially filed by Log Cabin Republicans in 2004, seeks to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the grounds that it violates the freedom of speech rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

The Justice Department brief that was made public last week comes after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled late last month to deny the government’s call for summary judgment in the case based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

The deadline for the plaintiffs’ response to the brief is June 23.

In the brief, the Obama administration contends that “principles of constitutional avoidance and respect for the coequal branches of government” necessitate that the court should support a stay in proceedings until “completion of the process already undertaken by the political branches.”

“Accordingly, the court should await the outcome of the process in which the political branches are now engaged before deciding the constitutional question presented,” the brief says.

Late last month, the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of attaching “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language to the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. The Justice Department argues proceedings on the case should stop until Congress completes this action because, among other reasons, courts “should not decide constitutional issues if they can reasonably avoid doing so.”

Further, the government argues that holding off on adjudication is in the best interest of all parties involved because it would save the court from “expending considerable time and resources on pretrial motions, trial preparation, trial, and any potential post-trial briefing concerning the constitutionality of a statute that may be repealed.”

Doug NeJaime, a gay law professor at Loyola Law School, said he disagrees with the Justice Department’s argument to hold off on proceedings because the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure under consideration in Congress is a compromise that “still leaves some uncertainty.”

The measure that lawmakers have put forward wouldn’t take effect until after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue at the end of the year and the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for repeal.

“And given the way in which the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell]’ repeal has crawled up to this point, I don’t think it makes sense for a court to stay the case pending legislative action,” NeJaime said. “The constitutional questions are ripe for consideration.”

The reply brief also responds to a request from the court to address the potential application of a heightened standard of review set forth in the 2008 Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruling in Witt v. Air Force, which was tied to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The Witt decision, which was construed to only apply to the plaintiff, determined the Pentagon needed to prove lesbian Maj. Margaret Witt’s sexual orientation was a detriment to unit cohesion in order to discharge her from the Air Force.

The Justice Department argues that the Witt standard doesn’t apply in the Log Cabin case because Witt was an as-applied challenge while Log Cabin is a facial challenge.

In a facial challenge, the plaintiff alleges that a statute is always and under all circumstances unconstitutional and therefore void. But in an as-applied challenge, a plaintiff contends that a statute may in part be unconstitutional in redress of a specific injury.

The Justice Department argues that the U.S. District Court of Central California already determined last year that the Witt standard — as an as-applied case — doesn’t apply to the Log Cabin litigation.

“There is no basis to reconsider that ruling, which was and remains correct,” the brief says.

However, should the court decide to evaluate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” under a more heightened review, the Justice Department says the court already rejected a legal challenge with this standard of scrutiny against the policy for gays in the military in the 1980 case Beller v. Middendorf.

“Because Witt does not disturb the analysis employed in Beller with respect to facial challenges, the Beller standard, not the as-applied Witt standard, is binding,” the brief says.

The Justice Department further contends it’s entitled to summary judgment in its favor because Log Cabin’s challenge “would fail under the Beller analysis.”

But NeJaime said he disagrees with the Justice Department’s determination that the Beller case applies to Log Cabin’s litigation and not Witt.

Although Witt is an as-applied challenge, NeJaime said that doesn’t mean “the court’s analysis in Witt, and its application of a heightened standard of review, is irrelevant to the pending facial challenge.”

NeJaime said the Witt court drew on protections afforded to LGBT people in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws throughout the country.

He said the application of Lawrence in the Witt case is “certainly relevant” in Log Cabin’s facial challenge and “counsels against applying rational basis review, as the government urges the court to do.”

“And, furthermore, I think it casts doubt on the government’s argument that Beller, and not Witt, should govern this case,” NeJaime said. “The pre-Lawrence Beller decision must certainly be re-evaluated in light of the Lawrence decision.”

Related Topics:Barack Obama Don't Ask Don't Tell

Up Next

Prop 8 case wraps up, ruling expected in weeks

Don't Miss

State Dept. issues pro-trans policy for U.S. passports

FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM

National

Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup

Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited

Published

1 day ago

April 29, 2026

Michael K. Lavers

(Photo by fifg/Bigstock)

More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.

“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”

“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”

The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.

The full advisory can be read here.

State Department

Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records

April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule

Published

2 days ago

April 28, 2026

Michael K. Lavers

(Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.

A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.

“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.

Federal Government

House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill

Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools

Published

2 days ago

April 28, 2026

Joe Reberkenny

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.

Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.

The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.

The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.

It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”

LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.

A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.

Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”

This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.