June 2010
Posted by: Research
AS SOLICITOR-GENERAL NOMINEE, KAGAN PROMISED “VIGOROUS DEFENSE OF THE STATUTES OF THIS COUNTRY”
At Her Confirmation Hearing, Kagan Stated That Her Most Critical Responsibility As Solicitor-General Was “The Vigorous Defense of The Statutes Of This Country Against Constitutional Attack.” “At the same time, the solicitor general has critical, no less critical responsibilities to Congress. Most notably, the vigorous defense of the statutes of this country against constitutional attack. Traditionally, outside of a very narrow band of cases involving a separation of powers, the solicitor general has defended any federal statute in support of which any reasonable argument can be made. And I pledge to continue this strong presumption, that the Solicitor General's Office will defend each and every statute enacted by this body.” (Elena Kagan, “Solicitor General Confirmation Hearing,” Senate Judiciary Committee, 2/10/09)
AS SOLICITOR-GENERAL, KAGAN REPEATEDLY FAILED TO APPEAL ATTACKS ON FEDERAL STATUTES
As Solicitor-General, Kagan Failed To Review The 9th Circuit’s Decision Undermining The Military’s Application Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Law. “The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military's ban on service members found to be gay. A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn't be required to argue the merits in her individual case.” (Jess Bravin and Laura Meckler, “Obama Avoids Test On Gays In Military,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/19/09)
And In August 2009, Kagan’s Office Filed A Brief In A California Case Challenging The Defense Of Marriage Act, Stating That “This Administration Does Not Support DOMA As A Matter Of Policy, Believes That It Is Discriminatory, And Supports Its Repeal.” (US District Court For The Central District Of California, “Reply Memorandum”, Case No. SACV09-00286 DOC (MLGx), 8/24/09)