so in both cases the plaintiffs argued the supreme court's recent decision in lawrence v. texas admit that the don't ask, don't tell law, which says that people who are openly homosexual may not serve in the armed forces, should be struck down as unconstitutional. in the first circuit case, the court upheld don't ask, don't tell. the plaintiffs said the law was uncontusion nal as applied to them. the court agreed that lawrence versus texas was under scrutiny but upheld the statute at that time. but the ninth circuit did not approach it in that way. they did not apply the traditional deference to military issues as did the first. the ninth circuit invented a new standard of review for the substantive due process challenge requiring the government to make detailed individual findings in these cases. most importantly, unlike the first circuit, the ninth circuit failed to acknowledge the need for uniformity in military policies, and so the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a full trial and that every plaintiff, apparently, would be sbitd led to a full trial, something th

so in both cases the plaintiffs argued the supreme court's recent decision in lawrence v. texas admit that the don't ask, don't tell law, which says that people who are openly homosexual may not serve in the armed forces, should be struck down as unconstitutional. in the first circuit case, the court upheld don't ask, don't tell. the plaintiffs said the law was uncontusion nal as applied to them. the court agreed that lawrence versus texas was under scrutiny but upheld the statute at that time. but the ninth circuit did not approach it in that way. they did not apply the traditional deference to military issues as did the first. the ninth circuit invented a new standard of review for the substantive due process challenge requiring the government to make detailed individual findings in these cases. most importantly, unlike the first circuit, the ninth circuit failed to acknowledge the need for uniformity in military policies, and so the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a full trial and that every plaintiff, apparently, would be sbitd led to a full trial, something th