From Lambda Legal (kind of the gay ACLU, though the ACLU is pretty gay on its own):
Lambda Legal Disappointed by Decision to Vacate Ruling Finding DADT Unconstitutional
“We are deeply disappointed that the Ninth Circuit chose to erase the factual findings and legal conclusions…that thousands upon thousands of lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members’ constitutional rights were violated for 18 years by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
(Los Angeles, September 29, 2011) – Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal, issued the following statement regarding today’s decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacating an earlier U.S. District Court ruling declaring Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unconstitutional.
“We are deeply disappointed that the Ninth Circuit chose to erase the factual findings and legal conclusions reached after years of litigation and a lengthy trial that thousands upon thousands of lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members’ constitutional rights were violated for 18 years by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Davidson said. “The end of anti-gay discrimination by the military was required by the Constitution, not just by political considerations.”
“It is wrong to require the more than 14,000 service members who were unconstitutionally discharged to start from square one in obtaining the military benefits they lost, getting their military records corrected, and fighting government efforts to collect educational loans they were prevented from working off, among other harms,” he added. “The work to end the damage done by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is far from done and we call on the administration to provide justice to those our country has wronged.”
The case is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, in which U.S. District Court Judge Phillips in 2010 declared DADT unconstitutional. She ruled not only that DADT violated the rights of LGBT soldiers by depriving them of their rights to free speech and due process; it also had a “direct and deleterious effect” on military readiness. Lambda Legal filed two amicus briefs in this case asking the 9th Circuit to lift the stay on the District Court ruling, as well as urging the Court to find DADT unconstitutional.