The Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed an objection [JURIST report] Thursday in the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] asking the court not to issue a proposed injunction [text, PDF] that would prohibit the military from enforcing DADT. The court declared the policy unconstitutional [opinion, PDF] earlier this month. Earlier this week, the Senate rejected a cloture motion [JURIST report] on a defense appropriations bill that would have repealed the policy. Last month, a US military officer filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] seeking to enjoin the military from discharging him under DADT. In May, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee [official websites] voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.

Despite the fact that some limited information related to al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and Anwar al-Awlaki has been made public by the U.S. Government, [the] Plaintiff's allegation in this case implicate other sensitive intelligence information that must be protected from disclosure."

The lawsuit [JURIST report] questioning the legality of targeted killings was filed in late August by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) [advocacy websites]. Earlier that month, the ACLU and the CCR obtained a specially designated global terrorist (SDGT) license that enables them to represent Anwar al-Awlaki, but announced they are still pursuing a legal challenge [JURIST reports] to the licensing scheme. The Obama administration has defended [JURIST report] its use of targeted killings, specifically those made by unmanned predator drone strikes [JURIST news archive]. State Department Legal Adviser [official website] Harold Koh [academic profile] has said the drones "comply with all applicable law" because they target only military targets and enable minimal damage to civilians and civilian structures. Last October, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston [official website] noted that the use of unmanned drones by the US to carry out attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan may be illegal [JURIST report].