Monday, October 03, 2011


By Mike Dorf

Last week, in Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S., a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed as moot an appeal from a ruling of a federal district judge invalidating the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell (DADT) policy.  The court's reasoning was simple: Because the armed forces have now implemented the congressional repeal of the policy, it presents no ongoing controversy.  The plaintiffs--who won in the district court but cross-appealed on their equal protection claim--argued that the ruling was not moot because the claims for declaratory relief fit into one or both of two exceptions.  The court rejected that argument and the case was over.

But not before Judge O'Scannlain chimed in with a somewhat unusual concurrence.  Although he "fully concur[red]" in the mootness dismissal, he went on to address the merits to help clear up "uncertainty" about the scope of Lawrence v. Texas, on which the district court had relied in invalidating DADT.  Here I want to explore some of the questions raised by his concurrence.

Lawrence invalidated a Texas law imposing criminal penalties for "homosexual conduct" but did not expressly state that sodomy, same-sex intimacy, or sexual intimacy more generally is a "fundamental right" as that term has been defined in the Court's substantive due process jurisprudence.  The district court thought that Lawrence did recognize a fundamental right to "certain intimate conduct," including the conduct that could result in dismissal from the armed forces under DADT.  Judge O'Scannlain thought that in light of other substantive due process rulings, Lawrence should be read more narrowly.

On the merits, I must say that I find the district court's reading more persuasive.  It's true that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence does not use the magic words "fundamental right" (except in discussing Bowers v. Hardwick), but that's mostly because the Court's SDP jurisprudence as a whole over the last twenty years has instead talked in terms of "liberty."  If we are to translate the ruling into the older language, Lawrence is better read as deeming sexual intimacy fundamental than as merely invalidating a penalty.  After all, the Court does not at all rely on its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence or anything like it.

That said, I acknowledge that Lawrence leaves open the question that divided the district judge and Judge O'Scannlain.  Had the merits been properly presented, Judge O'Scannlain's reading of Lawrence would have been one plausible approach, albeit one with which I disagree.
But the merits weren't presented.  The majority dismissed the case as moot.  Had Judge O'Scannlain disagreed with the mootness holding, he would have been well within his rights to address the merits or not.  There is no uniform practice in such matters.  Some judges will accept the majority's holding on the jurisdictional point and thus not say anything on the merits.  Other judges will say something like this: "Because I disagree with the majority and think that this court has jurisdiction, I shall address to say how I would resolve the case."  But Judge O'Scannlain agreed that the case was moot, so this wasn't a real option.

Prior to the Supreme Court's 1998 decision in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, lower courts sometimes employed "hypothetical jurisdiction."  Faced with a hard question as to jurisdiction but a relatively easy case on the merits for rejecting the claim or defense of the party seeking jurisdiction, courts might say that they assume jurisdiction for the sake of argument, but reject the claim or defense on the merits.  Under such a regime, Judge O'Scannlain might have said that he didn't want to decide the mootness issue because he thought the plaintiffs should clearly lose.  Steel Co. rejects hypothetical jurisdiction as inconsistent with Article III of the Constitution, however, so that's out.  And even if Steel Co. hadn't rejected hypothetical jurisdiction, there would still be no basis for Judge O'Scannlain to rely on it, as he did not in any way indicate that he thought the mootness question (the jurisdictional issue here) difficult.

Does that mean that Judge O'Scannlain's move here is unprecedented?  No.  The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison did the same thing: The Court addressed the merits -- finding that Marbury had a legal entitlement to a remedy for the withholding of his commission -- but then announcing that there was no jurisdiction. Nonetheless, this feature of Marbury has long been criticized as an effort by CJ John Marshall to poke his rival (and distant cousin) Thomas Jefferson in the eye in a way that would not give Jefferson a way to poke back.  So despite Marbury's canonical status with respect to judicial review, it's not exactly a good precedent for Judge O'Scannlain's merits discussion accompanying a no-jurisdiction holding.

Nor is Judge O'Scannlain's stated rationale for his merits discussion very persuasive.  He writes that he wants to clear up "uncertainty" created by the district court opinion, but precisely because Judge O'Scannlain's discussion on the merits has no precedential force--even less precedential force than a concurrence or dicta in a case in which there is jurisdiction--it's not at all clear how Judge O'Scannlain could be resolving such uncertainty.  At most he is alerting the public to the existence of uncertainty by showing that judges disagree about the scope and implications of Lawrence.  Yet he could have accomplished that task by simply stating something like the following: "In dismissing this case as moot, we express no opinion on the district court's resolution of the merits, which, following this ruling, and indeed, regardless of what would have occurred on appeal, sets no precedent."  Such a statement would have been superfluous anyway, at least for anyone reasonably familiar with federal court practice.

So, at the end of the day, is there anything to be said for what Judge O'Scannlain did here?  That question is impossible to answer without regard to what one thinks about the merits.  If a district judge writes an opinion that an appeals court judge regards as very badly mistaken and potentially mischievous--an opinion concluding that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to the states, say, or that children of undocumented immigrants aren't citizens--we could well understand why an appeals court judge would want to write an opinion disavowing that ruling, even if dismissing the appeal as moot.  Thus, the key to understanding Judge O'Scannlain's concurrence in Log Cabin Republicans is to see that he regards the district court decision invalidating DADT as not just wrong but egregiously so.  I find that unsettling, to say the least.


Publius the Clown said...

Hi, Professor Dorf--I agree that Judge O'Scannlain's merits discussion is procedurally bizarre. But I think his interpretation of Lawrence (or, in any event, his disagreement with the District Court's holding) is fairly defensible.

As I note in this blog post, Lawrence appears to apply rational basis review insofar as it holds that "[t]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify" abrogating the liberty interest at issue. (Emphasis added.)

But then Justice Kennedy's opinion muddies the waters by focusing almost solely on the importance of the right to intimate association rather than discussing and rejecting possibly legitimate state interests or the law's relation to any legitimate state interests. So it's a very confusing opinion.

As a result, insofar as Judge O'Scannlain's opinion (which I haven't read) takes the view that the Supreme Court hasn't declared a fundamental right to intimate association etc., I think a good case--but not an open-and-shut case--can be made in his favor.

Rick said...

Perhaps sensing the undercurrent within federal judiciary moving towards equality, Judge O'Scannlain felt compelled to throw a counterpunch in a case he has deemed moot. Rather than providing “guideposts” for courts (as he claimed), his cramped reading of Lawrence was injected to show antigay forces how to counter a landmark case which, if taken to its logical end, will be the legal foundation for recognizing marriage equality.

At 74, Judge O'Scannlain has no prospect of ever being nominated to the High Court. Maybe that’s why he was just so unbridled in writing such an unnecessary and misguided concurrence. It’s unfortunate that Judge O'Scannlain has chosen the wrong side of history to leave his mark.

Joe said...

The opinion was probably purposely vague to set forth a broad principle. Brown v. Bd., if applied strictly, very well might reasonably not be applied to transportation. After all, it specifically was about education and focused on that.

The ruling said Bowers was wrong when decided. Why? Because the case fit among other cases such as Griswold protecting intimate association. These cases spoke of fundamental rights.

There might be a reason to go carefully here, but at best the result below was debatable. It was ill advised to answer alleged lack of restraint by not using enough the other direction.

CEP said...

What I found most amusing about Judge O'Scannlain's merits discussion is that it does precisely that to which he objects: He reaches beyond his authority (moot case = no authority to decide on the merits) to decide issues not before him, just as he accuses the District Court judge of doing. I seem to recall something called the Advisory Opinion Doctrine... (snerk)

I despise the Advisory Opinion Doctrine, because if the facts of the potential dispute are sufficiently fixed I think a pre-harm request for an advisory opinion is a "controversy" falling inside of Article III. However, I'm clearly in a minority, and that view is not the law as it now stands.

john said...

very interesting and informative post. i think that Brown v. Bd., if applied strictly, very well might reasonably not be applied to transportation.

美麗資訊攻略站 said...



Shelia Smithson said...

seo博客 英文seo
But then Proper rights Kennedy's viewpoint muddies the ocean by concentrating on almost just on the significance of the right to personal organization rather than dealing with and rejecting possibly genuine condition pursuits or the law's regard to any genuine condition pursuits. So it's a very complicated viewpoint.WOW Gold

Paley Rene said...

But then Justice Kennedy's opinion muddies the waters by focusing almost solely on the importance of the right to intimate association rather than discussing and rejecting possibly legitimate state interests or the law's relation to any legitimate state interests. So it's a very confusing opinion.Windows 7 ultimate product Key
Windows 7 professional activation Key
Cheap Windows 7 Key

Unknown said...

A mage during the Globe of Globe of warcraft can choose 3 individual techniques of personalization. Here skills plants each signify a different taste of miracle which a expert may throw. The shrub skills plants on the market to a caster are Snow, Fire position plus Arcane.If gamer compared to gamer fight initiates a performer's interest,

RS Gold  Buy Diablo 3 Gold   Buy Guild Wars 2 Gold