Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
In 1967, at the age of 19, Watkins (P) enlisted in the army but marked his form clearly that he had homosexual tendencies; he was still marked for admission. P was an exemplary soldier and got high reviews, and his homosexuality was common knowledge. P served 14 years and was called one of our most respected and trusted soldiers. After the Vietnam era was over, in 1981, the Army decided that it was time to get rid of all of “them” regardless of their time in the military or experience. P was told he would be discharged. P’s discharged was not based on any actual homosexual acts but his claimed homosexual orientation. D has never claimed that P’s sexual orientation or behavior interfered in any way with military functions. D knew all the details of P’s lifestyle status and his officers and fellow soldiers defended his performance. P even got a secret clearance with D’s full knowledge of P’s homosexual lifestyle. P sued the United States Army (D) on various statutory and constitutional grounds. P claimed invidious discrimination based on sexual orientation and that the regulations were a violation of Equal Protection. On October 5, 1982, the district court enjoined D from refusing to reenlist P because of his admitted homosexuality, holding that D was equitably estopped from relying on AR 601-280, para. 2-21(c). On appeal, the court reversed the district court's injunction. The equity powers of the federal courts could not be exercised to order military officials to violate their own regulations absent a determination that the regulations were repugnant to the Constitution or the military's statutory authority. On remand, the district court held that the Army's regulations were not repugnant to the Constitution or statutory authority and accordingly denied P's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of D. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co