User:Aennulatw/sandbox

This is my sandbox...

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy was enacted by the Congress of the United States in 1993, as a replacement to the former policy held by the Department of Defense that simply discharged all homosexuals. DADT was put into action as an effort to address the controversy over the varying sexual orientations of men and women serving in the military. Under the new policy, as long as no "homosexual acts" were committed the discharge of a service member due solely to their homosexual orientation was prohibited. Any service member who states that he or she is gay or lesbian will be discharged unless that member can prove he or she does not engage, or have any intention to engage in homosexual acts. Because of this "statement prong," officers were barred from inquiring the sexual orientation of anyone within the military service.

Lead up to Case
Holmes was unable to convince the federal recognition withdraw board (the Board) that he had no intention of partaking in homosexual activities, and was consequently discharged from the California Army National Guard (CANG) on May 21, 1994. In February of 1995, Holmes brought suit in the United States District Court for the North District of California against CANG and the United States Army National Guard (USANG), claiming that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was unconstitutional on the grounds of equal protection and the First Amendment. The plaintiff sought out damages, as well as injunctive]relief and declaratory relief based on the United States Constitution and California state law. The District Court granted summary judgment to Holmes on his federal equal protection and free speech claims against the CANG and USANG.

discharged from the CANG on May 21, 1994, due to the final ruling of the federal recognition withdraw board.

Ninth Circuit Decision
The Ninth Circuit denied Holmes' equal protection claim by stating that homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, therefore the case would be based on a rational basis review. The court found that the military has legitimate reasoning in regard to maintaining discipline and combat readiness for the exclusion of service members who partake in homosexual activities.