Thomasson v. Perry
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
80 F.3d 915 (1996)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Paul G. Thomasson (plaintiff) was a lieutenant in the United States Navy, where he had a very successful ten-year career. In March 1994, Thomasson wrote a letter to his admirals in which he stated that he was gay. The previous year, Congress had passed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act (DADTA), which prohibited homosexuality in the military in § 654(b). The Navy initiated separation proceedings against Thomasson. The Board of Inquiry found that his letter gave rise to the presumption that he had a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts that warranted separation and recommended Thomasson be honorably discharged. The Board of Review unanimously upheld the finding, and the Chief of Navy Personnel signed the discharge orders. Thomasson sued the Navy, alleging that the DADTA violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment and suppressed speech on the basis of content and viewpoint. Thomasson argued that the Department of Defense (DoD) did not bar homosexuals from continued service but that the DADTA distinguished between declared and undeclared homosexuals. The court preliminarily enjoined Thomasson’s discharge but ultimately granted the Navy’s motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals voted to hear the case en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkinson, C.J.)
Dissent (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.