Barack Obama | Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Military | News

Judge to Reject Government's Request for Stay of DADT Injunction

Judge Virginia Phillips is likely to reject the government's request for a stay in the injunction against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at a hearing in Riverside, California.

The Advocate reports: Dadt

"During the 25-minute hearing, Phillips wasted no time in rejecting the government's arguments that barring dadt immediately would be an undue burden on the military and called the justice department's declarations to the court both vague and insufficient. Assistant U.S attorney Paul Freeborne asked the court for a five day administrative stay so it can pursue an appeal of the injunction to the U.S. court of appeals for the ninth circuit."

The AP adds:

"Phillips called (the DOJ) request 'untimely,' saying the government had plenty of opportunity to modify her injunction before she ordered it last Tuesday. She also balked at their admission of a Rolling Stone article to support its argument that the abrupt change in the policy would hurt military readiness. 'I hardly need to say more than that,' Phillips said of the article. 'It's hearsay. It's not reliable.' Phillips also said the Justice Department also did not present evidence at the trial to show how her order would cause irreparable harm to U.S. troops. Justice Department attorney Paul Freeborne told her the government had no reason to respond until her order came down. He said her nationwide injunction is unrealistic. 'You're requiring the Department of Justice to implement a massive policy change, a policy change that may be reversed upon appeal,' Freeborne told her. Freeborne said the government would go to a higher court if she denied their request to temporarily freeze her injunction."

Phillips is expected to issue a formal ruling later Monday or early Tuesday.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. yes!

    Posted by: alguien | Oct 18, 2010 7:11:42 PM

  2. Bravo!

    Posted by: Wicked Gay Blog | Oct 18, 2010 7:12:31 PM

  3. A stay will be issued by a higher court and the judge's statements -- though I'm in agreement with them -- will just fuel the "activist judge" claims on the right.

    Posted by: BobN | Oct 18, 2010 7:15:45 PM

  4. Awesome news. Judge Phillips should simply say, "35 countries have integrated openly-gay personnel without it harming military readiness. Canada did this 18 years ago. Which means that you've obviously known how to do it for almost two decade. Just (fucking) do it."

    Posted by: David in Houston | Oct 18, 2010 7:18:14 PM

  5. Bless her. She's a beacon of American justice and rationality.

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | Oct 18, 2010 7:21:23 PM

  6. >>will just fuel the "activist judge" claims on the right<<

    As if Judge Vaughn's stay stopped the "activist judge" claim on prop 8.

    Based on some of the articles I've read (and I know you can't believe everything you read, especially on the internet) the Justice Department has made some pretty lame arguments in defending these cases and in one instance, didn't bother to argue against it. I'd have to do my research to verify, but it was an interesting read in the New York Times.

    Just saying.

    Posted by: Keith | Oct 18, 2010 7:22:13 PM

  7. Wow...a judge with balls. A lot more balls than our "fierce advocate".

    Posted by: Jay | Oct 18, 2010 7:22:38 PM

  8. Eric Holder and the DoJ are rank incompetents. Obama should fire him, but it looks like they're joined at the hip. What part of "unconstitutional" don't they get??

    Posted by: Jerry | Oct 18, 2010 7:28:54 PM

  9. You'd *almost* think one of the three branches of government was *almost* working!

    Posted by: adamblast | Oct 18, 2010 7:44:06 PM

  10. "As if Judge Vaughn's stay stopped the "activist judge" claim on prop 8."

    Well, I never accused them of being principled.

    Posted by: BobN | Oct 18, 2010 7:47:52 PM

  11. "Don't fuck with me fellas! This ain't my first rodeo."

    Posted by: The Realist | Oct 18, 2010 7:53:24 PM

  12. @Keith, I noticed that too. Could it be that they are (or at least the people directly working the case) blowing it. I mean... referencing a rolling stones article.

    Posted by: Joe | Oct 18, 2010 7:57:30 PM

  13. Bravo, Judge Phillips!

    Posted by: ichabod | Oct 18, 2010 8:01:28 PM

  14. What ROLLING STONE article is being referred to here? I'd love to see how self-loathing gay Jann Wenner's magazine is undermining the struggle for equality.

    Posted by: tcw | Oct 18, 2010 8:10:29 PM

  15. @Joe...

    Ok lets assume the strategy was to lose. That they want to appeal up to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling that holds more weight than a district judge --- wouldnt it then make sense that they would want the injunction in place while they appeal. Since the longer the injuction goes on the weaker their case gets. making it more likely they will continue to lose further appeals.

    And if its a law they dont like then not having in effect is a win. They dont have to request that DADT be active while the courts sort this out.

    Posted by: Bob | Oct 18, 2010 8:27:23 PM

  16. I would call this an official bitch slap to the DOJ :D

    Posted by: ravewulf | Oct 18, 2010 9:20:52 PM

  17. This would not be happening at this pace if McCain and Palin were elected.

    Every vote for President Obama was a good important one.


    free all male xxx pics - are back

    Posted by: nv3 | Oct 18, 2010 9:27:26 PM

  18. If they put half the energy into implementing the change that they ardently resist... they could have been done by now.

    Posted by: pete | Oct 18, 2010 9:28:26 PM

  19. I must admit this is puzzling. I've been assuming the DOJ was pursuing this with vigor, what with the appeal and all. But only recently found out they didn't put on a shred of a case. I mean, zero witnesses? That's just not credible as a winning strategy. So I'm not clear what their real game is here, and I'm a bit mindfucked.

    I admit, this trial was under the radar for me. I followed the Prop 8 trial like a madman, but didn't even know this one had gone to trial when the verdict came down.

    It came as an obviously pleasant surprise, and I've been following developments since. But this is most surprising and perplexing of all - the DOJ didn't put on a case, yet now are vigorously (if lamely) pursuing an appeal of the decision against them. What's going on??

    Posted by: Zlick | Oct 18, 2010 9:35:18 PM

  20. Politics....the midterms are a few weeks away.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Oct 18, 2010 10:18:30 PM

  21. Nice to see Judge Phillips has more balls than the's about time!

    Posted by: John Normile | Oct 18, 2010 10:48:27 PM

  22. Assuming the 9th rejects the stay and this heads to the Supreme, aren't we all a bit concerned that they will GRANT the stay? Could this be the real "strategy" being pursued by the homophobe DOJ under the direct control of our fierce advocate?

    Posted by: Tom | Oct 18, 2010 11:25:53 PM

  23. The DOJ has threatened to take the stay question to a higher court. So fine. MAKE them do it. This judge has decided that DADT is an illegal law, and they seriously expect her to stay that decision without providing a good reason why?

    After all
    1. The military is not harmed by temporarily not enforcing DADT, because it is not harmed by repealing DADT either (as proven by other militaries, and by US interaction with those militiaries, and by units that accept their LGB servicemembers even under DADT)
    2. National security is harmed by closeted servicemembers, and discharged LGB servicemembers, under DADT.
    3. It is unlikely that the DOJ will win on appeal. More and more cases are going against them. The administration doesn't appear to believe its own message.
    4. It is always in the country's best interest to render illegal laws unenforceable at the earliest opportunity.

    Every time DOJ fights something like this, it hurts Obama and Democrats' electoral chances.

    Posted by: Randy | Oct 19, 2010 12:32:43 AM

  24. Please be sure to vote for the candidates you appreciate in this coming election. If you'd like to learn more, check out - Get out there and make your voices heard!!!

    Posted by: Ty | Oct 19, 2010 12:32:43 AM

  25. "This would not be happening at this pace if McCain and Palin were elected"
    How do you figure that? All of the progress has happened because of judges. Obama has done nothing but appeal their decisions. McCain would have done the same.

    Posted by: Ken | Oct 19, 2010 2:38:43 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Watch: Palin Says GOP is 'Through' if it Doesn't Get Tea Party Message« «