The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has ruled in favor of the government in Cook v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional challenge to the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) servicemembers. The decision, from Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., was released on April 24.

C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)—the organization representing the plaintiffs in this case—conveyed his feelings about the ruling in a statement. ‘We are

disappointed in the court’s decision, and are reviewing all possible responses. We continue to believe the military’s ban is un-American and unconstitutional. There is no reason [LGB] Americans should be prohibited

from serving our country,’ he said, in part.

In the lawsuit, the 12 plaintiffs contended that ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ punishes gay, lesbian and bisexual service members…for their sexual orientation and for their private, constitutionally protected conduct.’ The plaintiffs alleged that they were separated from military service by application of the policy and further allege that their exclusion from military service violates their constitutional rights. They sought a declaration that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit all served honorably in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard and earned more than five dozen awards, medals and commendations, according to the SLDN release.

In its decision, the court ruled, among other things, that ‘no controlling case has held that homosexuals generally, let alone the subset of that class that the plaintiffs comprise—openly homosexual service members as defined by [the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy] —constitute a ‘suspect class’ for equal protection purposes.’ (A suspect, or protected, class consists of a group of people, such as women and racial minorities, against whom distinctions or discriminations have been deemed irrational.) Therefore, the court felt that equal protection did not apply to a class that was not suspect.

More information about the case, including biographies of the plaintiffs, is available at www.sldn.org.