{"id":633,"date":"2010-11-12T23:44:05","date_gmt":"2010-11-13T04:44:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=633"},"modified":"2016-10-01T13:31:38","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T17:31:38","slug":"scotus-keeps-dadt-in-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/scotus-keeps-dadt-in-place\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Keeps DADT in Place"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has denied a request by the Log Cabin Republicans\u00a0that the stay of an injunction barring enforcement of the military&#8217;s &#8220;Don&#8217;t Ask, Don&#8217;t Tell&#8221; by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals be vacated.<\/p>\n<p>Translating this from lawyer-speak into regular-person speak: the ruling by District Judge Virginia A. Phillips\u2019\u00a0declared the Don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell policy unconstitutional and issued an injunction prohibiting the Department of Defense from enforcing or complying with the policy. \u00a0The 9th Circuit\u00a0stayed the injunction &#8212; allowing the Department of Defense to continue compliance with DADT. \u00a0The Log Cabin Republicans had asked that the stay be vacated. \u00a0The Supreme Court said no.<\/p>\n<p>You can read the two-sentence denial of the request <a href=\"http:\/\/sblog.s3.amazonaws.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2010\/11\/Log-Cabin-applic-denied-11-12-10.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>SCOTUS blog <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2010\/11\/new-plea-to-end-military-gay-ban\/\" target=\"_blank\">had this to say<\/a>: <em>&#8220;Friday\u2019s order was not a good sign for the challengers of \u201cdon\u2019t ask\/don\u2019t tell,\u201d but it was not a ruling for or against the constitutionality of the policy. \u00a0The Court\u2019s decision to leave intact a lower court order in the situation that existed in this case at this time is based on different considerations, and does not necessarily telegraph how any Justice or the Court would come out after a full review of the merits of a case, following briefing and oral argument.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court has denied a request by the Log Cabin Republicans\u00a0that the stay of an injunction barring enforcement of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,44,33],"tags":[187,351,520,532],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-lgbtq-rights","tag-dont-ask-dont-tell","tag-log-cabin-republicans","tag-stay","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-ad","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=633"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/633\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=633"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}