Last week, following a federal district court ruling which found Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional, the Log Cabin Republicans — the plaintiffs in that case — filed an injunction to prevent the Defense Department from enforcing the policy and end the military’s ban against openly gay and lesbian servicemembers. The group asked Judge Phillips to prohibit the Pentagon “from enforcing or applying” DADT “including any implementing regulations, against any person under their jurisdiction or command.” The group also asked that the Judge suspend all ongoing DADT-related investigations. Moments ago, the Justice Department filed an objection to the proposed injunction, insisting that the judge’s decision be limited to the plaintiffs in the suit. The government argued that a wide injunction would “foreclose the US from litigating the constitutionality” of DADT in other cases and frustrate the ongoing Pentagon review of the policy:

A military-wide injunction would, moreover, prohibit the consideration of similar challenges in other courts and would freeze the development of important questions of law in violation of the Supreme Court’s clear direction that, in cases in which the United States is a defendant, the United States must be allowed to continue to advance legal arguments even after they have been rejected by a particular circuit. [...]

Witt affords the government the opportunity to develop the record to show that individual discharges are necessary upon a showing that the discharge of a particular servicemember “significantly furthers the government’s interest and whether less intrusive means would achieve substantially the government’s interest.” By enjoining all discharges, plaintiff’s proposed injunction would effectively preclude any such showing and prevent the as-applied adjudications the Ninth Circuit contemplated in Witt. Finally, binding Ninth Circuit precedent limits the authority of the district court to issue injunctive relief that would restrict the government’s enforcement of DADT throughout the entire country, as such an order would fail to afford due respect to the rulings of a sister circuit that has rejected the claims that would form the basis for the district court’s order of injunctive relief. [...]

“Entering an injunction with immediate effect would frustrate the ability of the Department of Defense to develop necessary policies, regulations, and training and guidance to accommodate a change in the DADT law and policy. An injunction with immediate effect will put DoD in the position where it must implement ad hoc potentially inadequate policies at a time when the military is in the midst of active combat operations.”

Following the Senate’s failure to begin debating the resolution, several Democratic lawmakers and repeal advocates saw the case as the fastest way to end DADT, and publicly urged DOJ not to appeal Judge Phillip’s decision. But this is merely the injunction. Once the judge enters her judgment, the crucial test will be whether the government decides to appeal her ruling. It’s also interesting that the government doesn’t defend the policy, and just questions the scope of LCR’s demands.

Read the DOJ’s entire response HERE.

[/update]

Yesterday, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Third District unanimously upheld a lower court’s finding that there is “no rational basis” for Florida’s statutory ban on gay and lesbian people adopting children in the state. “Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents,” the opinion states. “No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument.”

Gov. Charlie Crist — whose recent conversion on gay rights led him to at one point suggest that the case should be dropped entirely has announced that the state will stop enforcing the 33-year-old ban and will “confer with the adoptive father at the center of the case before deciding whether to appeal. He said, however, that he believes the state Supreme Court wouldn’t overturn the court rulings.” Towelroad has this video of Crist’s remarks:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott, meanwhile, said he was opposed to what he termed “single sex adoption.” “Children should be raised in a home with a married man and a woman,” Scott said.

Florida, of course, is the only state to explicitly prohibit gays and lesbians from adopting children. The state enacted the ban in 1977 — on the heels of Anita Bryant’s campaign against expanded rights for gay people and two years before the first reported case of an adoption by an openly gay person anywhere in the country. At the time, Bryant and other conservatives claimed that “the recruitment of our children is absolutely necessary for the survival and growth of homosexuality–for since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they must recruit, they must freshen their ranks.”

Back in March, two Florida lawmakers introduced legislation to overturn the state’s gay adoption ban, but were forced to withdraw the measure due to conservative opposition.

During Crist’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign, he issued a position paper which said that “he believes that children are best raised in a traditional family. Accordingly, he does not support repealing the ban on adoption by same-sex couples.”

The Boston Globe is reporting that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who on Tuesday voted to filibuster a measure to gradually repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is now lashing out against Harvard University President Drew Gilpin Faust for saying that the University would “continue barring ROTC from campus” unless the the ban against gays and lesbians is repealed. Brown also criticized Gilpin for supporting the DREAM Act and suggested that she would rather open the school to undocumented immigrants than military recruiters:

“Harvard President Faust has been lobbying on Capitol Hill in support of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants attending college. Harvard has its priorities upside down,” the Massachusetts Republican said in a statement. “They should embrace young people who want to serve their country, rather than promoting a plan that provides amnesty to students who are in this country illegally.”

“I am extremely disappointed to learn of Harvard University’s decision to continue to ban ROTC from its campus,” he added. “It is incomprehensible to me that Harvard does not allow ROTC to use its facilities, but welcomes students who are in this country illegally.”

The obvious point to make is that the DREAM Act itself would allow “young people who want to serve their country” enlist in the service. The Act permits immigrants who meet all eligibility requirements and serve in the U.S. armed forces or attend college for at least two years to obtain regular lawful permanent resident status after six years. As Andrea Nill points out, many Military experts have come out in support of the DREAM Act because it would significantly increase the pool of qualified recruits in the Latino population, which comprises the majority of undocumented immigrants and which research indicates are more likely to enlist and serve in the military than any other group.

Brown posits false choice — he’s saying that given the option of allowing Harvard students access to ROTC recruiters on campus or providing young undocumented immigrants with legal status, Faust ignored the the needs of military. That’s a hard argument to make when the Defense Department supports the Act and if Brown had allowed the Senate to proceed with debate, we could be on the brink of ending DADT (which would allow recruiters back on campus) and opening up the ranks to those who want to serve their country.