There is a lot of confusion about the jurisdiction of federal courts, I want to clear it up

[no limit]

There is some serious misinformation being spread around DU that rulings from federal district judges only apply to their local districts. This is absolutely not true. The confusion comes from precedent since district judges in fact do not set precedent in other districts. This is fine in the case of DADT being over ruled since you don't need precedent (I'll explain in a bit).

Currently this is what is going on:

- Judge in California rules that DADT is unconstitutional and the military worldwide must stop discharging gay service members.
- Obama's justice department has 60 days to appeal, no other party can appeal this.
- If they don't appeal DADT is no longer the law of the land and gays can openly serve in the US military

The only way this could be changed is if another district court ruled a different way since the ruling in California doesn't force other courts to rule the same way (it doesnt set precedent). However, another court ruling another way is simply not possible. The reason is that to bring a case in a district court you must have a plaintiff that can claim damages. That means Joe from Texas who really hates teh gay would have to file a lawsuit in which he says gays serving in the military causes him damage. You don't need to be the brightest bulb to understand that this arguemnt has absolutely no legal standing and would never be upheld in a federal court, no matter how conservative that court would be.

Make whatever excuse or argument you want for why Obama should or shouldn't appeal this. But the simple fact is if he doesn't DADT is over and gays can openly serve in the military.

I'm not a lawyer and have absolutely no legal experiance, I've just been paying attention for a while and I'm sure any lawyers here will back this up, as someone in another thread said it's not rocket science.

[Cerridwen]

1. Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85 - DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 85 - DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

§ 1331. Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

§ 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise

§ 1357. Injuries under Federal laws

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any person to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection of any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any State.

List of 9th Circuit Rulings (.pdf notice) and their national impact.


I hope you don't mind if I just repeat my post. :hi:

[no limit]

2. I appreciate that, thanks.

[KG]

3. from some of the arguments expressed to the contrary on this concept,,

you'd almost get impression some don't want an end to DADT.

[no limit]

4. Yeah, I don't understand them. They are making up outright lies to keep DADT on the books

But I think for most of them it's not that they want to keep DADT, it's that they just want to kiss Obama's ass no matter what he does.

[Hosnon]

5. This doesn't appear so cut and dry. When Prop 8 was struck down,

I discussed this at length with jurists and a law professor.

At most, I don't think a DC judge's ruling ever has effect outside of his or her state.

[no limit]

6. Prop 8 was a state law, not a federal law. It was struck down at the state supreme court

Federal courts were not involved. In this case we are talking about federal, not state, courts.

[Hosnon]

7. A federal court invalidated Prop 8.

But the distinction been state and federal is probably very important.

Which reminds me : the consensus answer with Prop 8 was that defense by the state bound the entire state to the ruling. By appealing, the DoJ likewise probably binds the federal government.

[no limit]

8. I'm sorry, you're right about that, I forgot they actually lost in the state supreme court

but the federal case is under appeal and a stay has been issued. So until this makes it's rounds in higher courts the issue will not be settled.

Obama does not need to appeal this.

[coti]

9. Good summary, except

that the law was "struck down," not "overruled." :P

[bvar22]

10. K&R ...Up to +3

Thanks for clearing the muddied waters.

[no limit]

11. Thanks, but it doesnt seem like very many people care about the actual facts.