Able v. United States

Last updated
Able v. United States
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameLieutenant Colonel Jane Able, et al. v. United States of America, et al.'
ArguedApril 2, 1998
DecidedSeptember 23, 1998
Citation(s)155 F.3d 628
Case history
Prior historyPreliminary injunction granted, 847 F. Supp. 1038 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); motion to dismiss denied, 863 F. Supp. 112 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); motion to certify interlocutory appeal denied, 870 F. Supp. 468 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); remanded, 44 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1995); permanent injunction entered following bench trial, 880 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); reversed and remanded, 88 F.3d 1280 (2nd Cir. 1996); permanent injunction entered, 968 F. Supp. 850 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Wilfred Feinberg, John M. Walker Jr., Pierre N. Leval
Case opinions
MajorityWalker, joined by unanimous

Able v. United States, 88 F.3d 1280 (2nd Cir. 1996) ("Able I"), 155 F.3d 628 (2nd Cir. 1998) ("Able II"), is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that upheld the Don't ask, don't tell (10 USC 654) law against various constitutional challenges. Both Able I and Able II overruled district court decisions striking down "Don't ask, don't tell" as unconstitutional.

Contents

Case history

Six gay or lesbian members of the armed forces- Lieutenant Colonel Jane Able, Petty Officer Robert Heigl, First Lieutenant Kenneth Osborn, Sergeant Steven Spencer, Lieutenant Richard Von Wohld, and Seaman Werner Zehr- had filed suit in the Eastern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Eugene Nickerson. When the Defense Department initiated an investigation into Petty Officer Heigl to determine if he was a homosexual, the district court issued a preliminary injunction against the investigation of him and the other plaintiffs. [1] The Second Circuit, while determining "that the district court had applied the wrong standard in deciding to issue the preliminary injunctions", stayed the lifting of the injunction pending a merits trial. [2]

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' challenges to Section 654 (b) (1) and (3), as well as their expressive association challenge, on the basis that they lacked standing. The court then, following a trial, held that section 654 (b) (2) violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, thus becoming the first court to do so. [3] [4]

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the 1995 ruling. They ruled that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Section 654 (b) (1) and (3), as well as their expressive association challenge. They also vacated and remanded to the district court the First and Fifth Amendment rulings, on the basis that the "new policy strikes a reasonable balance between the competing interests and because the policy is important to the military's accomplishment of its objectives, we find that it restrains speech no more than is reasonably necessary" and "the ...assumption ...that the ban on homosexual acts found in § 654(b)(1) is valid under the Constitution." [5]

On remand, Judge Nickerson struck down the acts provision of "Don't ask, don't tell" (Section 654(b)(1)) as a violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. [6] On appeal from that decision, the Second Circuit reversed, on the basis that "[g]iven the strong presumption of validity [the Court] give[s] to classifications under rational basis review and the special respect accorded to Congress's decisions regarding military matters, [they] will not substitute [their] judgment for that of Congress" and "that Congress has proffered adequate justifications for the Act". As the plaintiff-appellees asserted at oral argument "that they were not seeking any more onerous standard than the rational basis test", the Court applied rational basis review without deciding whether that was the appropriate standard for review. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child Online Protection Act</span> Former U.S. law to protect minors from certain material on the Internet

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of restricting access by minors to any material defined as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law, however, never took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set boundaries of Native American reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

<i>Holmes v. California National Guard</i>

Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States. The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas L. Ambro</span> American judge (born 1949)

Thomas Lee Ambro is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

<i>Williams v. Pryor</i>

Williams v. Pryor, 229 F.3d 1331, rehearing denied, 240 F.3d 944 was a federal lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged an Alabama law criminalizing the sale of sex toys in the state. In 1998, a statute enacted by the legislature of the State of Alabama amended the obscenity provisions of the Alabama Code to make the distribution of certain defined sexual devices a criminal offense. Vendors and users of such devices filed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against William H. Pryor, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. The State appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court ruling on October 12, 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Foundation for Equal Rights</span> American nonprofit organization

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

<i>Log Cabin Republicans v. United States</i> Federal lawsuit

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162 was a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 10 U.S.C. § 654, commonly known as don't ask, don't tell (DADT), which, prior to its repeal, excluded homosexuals from openly serving in the United States military. The Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), an organization composed of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Republicans, brought the suit on behalf of LCR members who serve or served in the military and were subject to DADT.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

<i>Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki</i> American legal case

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266, is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of laches bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."

<i>Cook v. Gates</i> American legal case

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

<i>High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office</i> U.S. legal case

High Tech Gays, et al. v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, et al., 895 F.2d 563 was a lawsuit decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 1990.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i> Civil lawsuit

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, a claim of trademark dilution requires proof of actual dilution, not merely a likelihood of dilution. This decision was later superseded by the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA).

<i>Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.</i> American legal case

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act.

Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when United States District Court judges must refer cases to three-judge panels. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that federal district courts are required to refer cases to a three-judge panel when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.

References

  1. ↑ Able v. United States, 847F. Supp.1038 (E.D.N.Y.1994).
  2. ↑ Able v. United States, 44F.3d128 (2d Cir.1995).
  3. ↑ Able v. United States, 870F. Supp.468 (E.D.N.Y.1995).
  4. ↑ Military Policy On Gays Ruled `Orwellian' by Lisa Anderson Chicago Tribune, March 31, 1995 Accessed July 11, 2011
  5. ↑ Able I, 88 F.3d 1280 (2d Cir. 1996).
  6. ↑ Able v. United States, 968F. Supp.850 , 865(E.D.N.Y.1997).
  7. ↑ Able II, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.