This is something I’ve been really interested in the last couple of weeks, and that is the obligation of the Justice Department to defend extant US Law in the court system. My opinion was that it was the obligation of every Justice Department to defend laws, even ones the current administration does not like, and that seems to be true, but this statement from Ted Olson suggests that after the initial defense, they are not obligated to appeal:
“It happens every once in awhile at the federal level when the solicitor general, on behalf of the U.S., will confess error or decline to defend a law,” said former George W. Bush administration solicitor general Ted Olson, who is leading the legal challenge of California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state attorney general have both declined to defend the law in court.
“I don’t know what is going through the [Obama] administration’s thought process on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” Olson said. “It would be appropriate for them to say ‘the law has been deemed unconstitutional, we are not going to seek further review of that.’”
Anyone have any examples of a Justice Department initially defending a law and then refusing to appeal?
I’m still of the opinion that once the elections are over, DADT will be repealed with the Defense Authorization Act. The recent court rulings will provide enough cover for a few Senators to vote the other way.