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.


  1. BobN says

    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.

  2. David in Houston says

    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.”

  3. says

    >>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.

  4. Jerry says

    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??

  5. Joe says

    @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.

  6. tcw says

    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.

  7. Bob says


    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.

Leave A Reply