A the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and. B the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society. D under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and. A any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and. B any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph A.
|Published (Last):||14 September 2012|
|PDF File Size:||14.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.53 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Able v. United States , 88 F. The case was assigned to U. 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. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' challenges to Section 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 b 2 violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution , thus becoming the first court to do so. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the ruling. They ruled that plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Section 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 On remand, Judge Nickerson struck down the acts provision of "Don't ask, don't tell" Section b 1 as a violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
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. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. United States of America, et al. Walker Jr.
Leval Case opinions Majority Walker, joined by unanimous Able v. United States , F. United States , 44 F. Don't ask, don't tell. Sexual orientation in the United States military. Holmes v. California National Guard McVeigh v. Cohen Able v. Cook v. Gates Witt v. United States Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Contribute Help Community portal Recent changes Upload file.
STATE PLAN FOR CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT
Able v. United States , 88 F. The case was assigned to U. District Court Judge Eugene Nickerson.
Skip to Main Content - Keyboard Accessible
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 124.djvu/3541