Cammermeyer Case

REP. BARNEY FRANK TEL 202-225-0182 Jan 09 95 17:29 NO. P.02 BARNEY FRANK 558 PLEASANT STREET 4TH DISTRICT, MASSACHUSETTS ROOM 309 NEW BEDFORD, MA 02740 (508) 999-6482 2404 RAYBURN BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 205 15-2104 Congress of the United States 222 MILLIKEN PLACE (202) 225-5931 THIRD FLOOR 29 CRAFTS SIKEE: House of Representatives FALL RIVER, MA 02721 NEWTON, MA 02158 (508) 674-3551 (617) 332-3920 Washington, DC 89 MAIN STREET BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324 (508) 697.9403 January 5, 1995 H- Mr. Harold Ickes Let's discuss. Asst To The President And Deputy Chief of Staff The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 GEORGE S. Dear Mr. Ickes: I want to memorialize that which we spoke about today, concerning the terms of the decision to not pursue the appeal of Cammermeyer pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 1) The most important legal point is that the case is clearly only about the old policy. The District Court judge, in response to the Government's concern that the Court's ruling could possibly be interpreted to apply to the new policy, put that speculation to rest: "The government contends that this Court's Order enjoining the defendants from 'taking any adverse action against plaintiff on account of statements of her homosexual orientation' immunizes plaintiff from compliance with, and disciplinary action under, the military's new policy concerning homosexuals in military service. The detendants have misconstrued the Court's order. The Court clarifies that its Order enjoins defendants from taking any adverse action against plaintiff on account of any of plaintiff's statements concerning her homosexual orientation made prior to the date she is reinstated to her former position in the Washington State National Guard in accordance with this Court's Order mandating reinstatement. 6/24/94 Order, at 1-2. Further, while the District Court relied on facts offered before Congress pursuant to the new policy to review the Government's proferred rationale for the old policy, the holding of the Court is explicitly limited to the old regulations. 2) As a matter of principle, Gretha is a true hero, and deserves the respectful and dignified result that a dismissal of the appeal which leaves the lower court ruling intact would provide. Her case is widely known, and there is a large amount of support and sympathy for her. It would be an outrage within the communities that are supportive of her if her case were pursued, THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIRERS