Rostker v. Goldberg

12 Citing briefs

  1. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed November 9, 2007

    Congressional war power “is subject to applicable constitutional limitations,” including the Due Process Clause. Hamilton v. Ky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156 (1919); Rostker, 453 U.S. at 67. Finally, the level of judicial deference to congressional enactments is wholly irrelevant to the proper scope of analysis on a motion to dismiss.

  2. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Attorney Fees under EAJA and FRCP 37

    Filed February 6, 2012

    Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 58 (2006) (quoting Rostker, 453 U.S. at 70), and the Government could properly and reasonably rely on that deference to mount a defense of the statute. And while Congress enacted the DADT Repeal Act calling for the potential and orderly repeal of the statute after the Court’s ruling, the Government also properly defended that enactment on appeal under the same principles of judicial deference that apply to matters of military policy.

  3. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

    REPLY in support MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude expert testimony 178

    Filed June 24, 2010

    And the Court reaffirmed that courts are “not to substitute . . . [their] own evaluation of evidence for a reasonable evaluation of by the Legislative Branch.,” id. (quoting Rostker, 453 U.S. at 68), in the context of foreign and military affairs. Finally, LCR makes the odd claim that “expert testimony in this case cannot be limited to DADT’s legislative history” because Congress “had no reason to deliberate over the impact of DADT upon individual rights” that it claims Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003), recognized.

  4. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed September 25, 2007

    Indeed, “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies.” Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47, 58 (2006) (quoting Rostker, 453 U.S. at 70; emphasis as in FAIR). Because our national defense depends on a volunteer army and an extensive system of volunteer reserves, the VJRA plays a critical role in Congress’ ability to raise and support an Army and Navy.

  5. Ramsay et al v. Dalrymple et al

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed August 22, 2014

    Although not required, the man-woman definition of marriage satisfies heightened scrutiny because even under that more demanding standard, “[t]he Constitution requires that [a State] treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 79 (1981). “To fail to acknowledge even our most basic biological differences,” like those between same-sex couples and man-woman couples, “risks making the guarantee of equal protection superficial, and so disserving it.”

  6. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 88 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

    Filed February 11, 2008

    Moreover, while legislation affecting veterans’ benefits is enacted under Art. I, § 8, the very case cited by VA holds, “[i]n that area, as any other, Congress remains subject to the limitations of the Due Process Clause . . . .” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 67-68 (1981). VA’s other cases, First Nat’l Bank v. Albright, 208 U.S. 548, 553 (1908), and Home Loan Bank Bd.

  7. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION for Permanent Injunction

    Filed January 30, 2008

    C 07 3758 SC Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 23 deference.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 64-65 (1981). Plaintiffs’ evaluation of the public interest and balance of harms rests entirely on their flawed merits argument: the public interest, they say, is in doing what they want because it would be better for veterans.

  8. Windsor v. The United States Of America

    RESPONSE to Motion re: 52 MOTION to Dismiss.

    Filed August 19, 2011

    1989); Ben-Shalom v. Marsh, 881 F.2d 454, 456 (7th Cir. 1989). Classifications in the military context, however, present different questions from classifications in the civilian context, see, e.g., Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70 (1981), and the military is not involved here. 3 Many other courts relied in whole or in part on Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which has since been overruled by Lawrence.

  9. USA v. Mehanna et al

    Opposition

    Filed July 29, 2011

    In this area perhaps more than any other, the Legislature's superior capacity for weighing competing interests means that "we must be particularly careful not to substitute our judgment of what is desirable for that of Congress." 130 S. Ct. at 2728 (quoting Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 68 (1981)). The Court essentially found that the scope of the independent advocacy exception to Section 2339B as articulated in the provision of personnel section 2339B(h), is coextensive with the First Amendment.

  10. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America et al

    MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW

    Filed June 21, 2010

    Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 58, 164 L. Ed. 2d 156, 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006) (quoting Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 70, 69 L. Ed. 2d 478, 101 S. Ct. 2646 (1981)). Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the judiciary’s limitations in matters of military policy: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH P.O. BOX 883, BEN FRANKLIN STATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20044 (202) 353-0543 DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW 6 Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 186 Filed 06/21/10 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:5946 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [I]t is difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.