“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” restriction on gays in US military is ruled unconstitutional

10 September 2010 by

A district court in California has ruled that the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is unconstitutional, and has awarded the plaintiffs a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the statute embodying the policy. Read judgment.

The Times reports today that  Judge Virginia Philips found that the policy  violated the plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and their rights of freedom of speech, association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First Amendment. The lawsuit was filed by a Southern Californian gay rights group by way of a challenge to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy which was introduced by President Clinton in 1993 as a way of keeping a campaign promise to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military. The measure overturned a doctrine issued under President Reagan stating that homosexuality was “incompatible with military service”, but allows gays to be dismissed if they reveal their sexual orientation even in a passing remark.

The Act reflects the concerns of the then-chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell that

military life is fundamentally different from civilian life.. [that] the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate the propensity of intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability

(as testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee July 20 1993).

There have been a number of challenges to DADT but this one is the first to succeed.

We have posted before on the fate of the state ban on gay marriage in the US, the application of human rights norms on the battlefield and, on the reverse side of the coin, the prioritisation of gay rights in asylum decisions. This is a particular interesting ruling because it demonstrates the width of the US constitution’s principle of due process and the way it includes interests that are separately covered by Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the way it interlinks with the protection of free speech under the First Amendment (again, separately articulated in Europe by Article 10).

In order to comply with the DADT Act, the plaintiffs contended that they had to keep their sexual orientation a secret from their colleagues, their unit and their military superiors, and that they could not communicate the core of their emotions and identity to others in the same manner as heterosexual members of the military, on pain of discharge from the army. The Court observed that the Act captures in its grasp such activities as private correspondence between service members and their family members and friends, and conversations between service members about their daily off-duty activities. The Act even prevents them from reporting violations of military ethical and conduct codes, even in outrageous incidences, for fear of retaliatory discharge.

The Judge noted that the government made out a somewhat half-hearted defence of the status quo; the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, on the other hand, was compelling. One of the members of the pressure group taking the case, who had won many awards and honors during his service in the Air Force, learned that his private email had been searched whilst he was on deployment to Iraq and when he returned to Germany his commanding officer confronted him with the messages, read him the DADT Act and pressured him to admit he was homosexual. He was subsequently relieved of his duties.  The plaintiff witnessed at first hand the demoralising effect of the abrupt withdrawal of his services from his squadron, which “fell apart” after his discharge forcing an unprepared junior officer to take over. This illustrated how important the plaintiff was not only to the mission but to his troops.

The plaintiffs therefore demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that the DADT Act does not significantly advance the Government’s interests in military readiness and unit cohesion. Indeed the discharge of several hundred service members under this Act severely reduced the number of members with “critical” language skills, including Arabic, Farsi, Chinese or Korean fluency. Further, the plaintiffs contended that the DADT Act negatively affects military recruiting in two ways: its existence discourages those who would otherwise enlist from doing so, and many colleges will not permit military recruiting because the Act’s requirements violate their employment nondiscrimination policies.

The plaintiffs’ claims that the DADT Act violated their substantive due process rights was based on jurisprudence that associated these rights with

the autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct

And although earlier cases had found that DADT did not implicate the First Amendment protection of free speech, the judge considered the Act’s proscriptions of certain types of speech: it requires a service member’s discharge if he or she has “stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect”. In her view, the Act thus unlawfully distinguishes between speech regarding sexual orientation (and therefore inevitably family relationships and daily activities) by gay service members, which is banned, and speech on those subjects by heterosexual service members, which is permitted. Even though the US courts’ review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws designed for civilian society, this margin of appreciation does not entirely abrogate the guarantees of the First Amendment in the military context. She therefore concluded that the DADT Act failed the test of constitutional validity.

The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling, but only because it is required to enforce existing law. The Obama Administration has pledged to repeal DADT and allow gays to serve openly; indeed President Obama in his capacity of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces stated last year that

“Don’t Ast, Don’t Tell” doesn’t contribute to our national security…preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security…reversting this policy is the right thing to do and is essential for our national security.

1 comment;

  1. S says:

    Good result but I wonder why they chose to argue on a freedom of speech basis and not on an explicit discrimination basis..

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: