High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office

Last updated
High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameHigh Tech Gays,et al v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, et al
ArguedDecember 16, 1988
DecidedFebruary 2, 1990
Citation(s) 895 F.2d 563; 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1435; 52 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 39,608; 58 USLW 2473
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Melvin T. Brunetti, Edward Leavy, Jesse W. Curtis (C.D. Cal.)
Case opinions
MajorityBrunetti, joined by a unanimous court
Screenshot from reel 247 showing High Tech gays at 1989 Pride parade, Charles Cyberski papers (1994-03), courtesy of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society Screenshot from reel 247 showing High Tech gays at 1989 Pride parade, Charles Cyberski papers (1994-03), Courtesy of Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society.png
Screenshot from reel 247 showing High Tech gays at 1989 Pride parade, Charles Cyberski papers (1994-03), courtesy of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society

High Tech Gays, et al. v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, et al., 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) [1] was a lawsuit decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 1990.

In 1984, High Tech Gays, a social organization of gay people employed in the technology industry founded in 1983 in San Jose, California, [2] challenged the policy of the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Organization (DISCO), a unit of the U.S. Department of Defense, that routinely denied security clearances to applicants who were known or thought to be homosexual. The group brought the suit as a class action with three named plaintiffs. DISCO's policy was to deny high-level security clearances to anyone who had participated in homosexual activity within the past fifteen years and to require more extensive review of applications for security clearances on the part of gays. The plaintiffs were employed by businesses doing work under contract to the Department of Defense. [1]

In 1987, the District Court determined that laws that treat gay people as a class must be reviewed under the federal courts' heightened scrutiny standard because gay people are a "quasi-suspect class", noting that Bowers v. Hardwick held that "under the due process clause lesbians and gay men have no fundamental right to engage in sodomy". [3] It found that the Defense Department's policy did not meet even its lowest standard of review, rational basis. [1] [4]

The District Court stayed the enforcement of its decision during appeal after the Department of Defense presented arguments "based on new evidence from several sources indicating that hostile intelligence agencies target persons who are especially vulnerable, and that among others, persons who are gay people are considered vulnerable by these agencies." [1]

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision. It held that the proper standard of review was rational basis, citing Hardwick and writing that "the right to privacy inheres only in family relationships, marriage and procreation, and does not extend to all private sexual conduct between consenting adults." Addressing the other criteria that would require the use of a different standard of review, the Court added that "Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral" and "homosexuals are not without political power". It found the Defense Department's policies were based on its determination "that counterintelligence agencies target homosexuals" and therefore were "rationally related to permissible ends". It also recognized that "Special deference must be given by the court to the Executive Branch when adjudicating matters involving their decisions on protecting classified information." [1] [5]

The plaintiffs' complaint was addressed on August 2, 1995, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12968 prohibiting discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in granting access to classified information". [6]

Related Research Articles

Dont ask, dont tell Former policy on gay people serving in the US military

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on military service by gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians, instituted during the Clinton administration. The policy was issued under Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 on December 21, 1993, and was in effect from February 28, 1994, until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service. This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces was mandated by United States federal law Pub.L. 103–160, which was signed November 30, 1993. The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "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".

Defense of Marriage Act 1996 US law defining marriage for federal purposes; overturned in the 2010s

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. All of the act's provisions, except those relating to its short title, were ruled unconstitutional or legally devoid by Supreme Court decisions in the cases of United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which invalidated the law and any enforcement it had.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that sanctions of criminal punishment for those who commit sodomy are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases, such as Roe v. Wade, had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. The Court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld, in a 5–4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults, in this case with respect to homosexual sodomy, though the law did not differentiate between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. This case was overturned in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, though the statute had already been struck down by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1998.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 1990.

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

<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.

Joseph Charles Steffan is an American lawyer and gay activist. He was expelled from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis in 1987 shortly before graduation after disclosing his homosexuality. He sued the U.S. Department of Defense, claiming that his oral avowal of homosexuality could not be construed as an indication that he ever had or intended to engage in sexual relations with another man. He lost a protracted court battle for reinstatement in 1994.

<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.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10450 on April 27, 1953. Effective May 27, 1953, it revoked President Truman's Executive Order 9835 of 1947, and dismantled its Loyalty Review Board program. Instead it charged the heads of federal agencies and the Civil Service Commission, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), with investigating federal employees to determine whether they posed security risks. It expanded the definitions and conditions used to make such determinations. The order contributed to the ongoing Lavender scare of the mid-1950s, barring thousands of lesbian and gay applicants from government jobs.

<i>Gill v. Office of Personnel Management</i>

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

<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.

<i>Able v. United States</i> American legal case

Able v. United States, 88 F.3d 1280, 155 F.3d 628, is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that upheld the Don't ask, don't tell 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.

<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>Adams v. Howerton</i>

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition met the standard at the time for rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.

<i>Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services</i>

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services, is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upholding Florida's ban of adoption of children by homosexual persons as enforced by the Florida Department of Children and Families.

Executive Order 12968 1995 US executive order signed by Bill Clinton

Executive Order 12968 was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton on August 2, 1995. It established uniform policies for allowing employees of the federal government access to classified information. It detailed standards for disclosure, eligibility requirements and levels of access, and administrative procedures for granting or denying access and for appealing such determinations. It expanded on the President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Executive Order 10450 of 1953.

<i>Sevcik v. Sandoval</i>

Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895F.2d563 (9th Cir.1990).
  2. Deutsch, Claudia H. (April 28, 1991). "Managing; Gay Rights, Issue of the 90's". The New York Times . Retrieved July 26, 2011. All sources except this Times article date the founding of the organization to 1983, not 1973.
  3. High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 668F.Supp.1361 , 1369(N.D. Cal.1987).
  4. "Homosexuals Win Case on Security". The New York Times. August 22, 1987. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
  5. For a discussion of the Court's understanding of the targeting of gay people by foreign agents, see Gerstmann, Evan (1999). The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 147–9. especially p. 148 n. 13.
  6. Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995. Retrieved July 26, 2011.

Text of High Tech Gays, et al. v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office, 895 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) is available from:  Google Scholar    Justia    Leagle    OpenJurist