Quote:

---

The Supreme Court turned aside Friday a gay rights group's request temporarily to suspend enforcement of the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.

The justices issued a brief order allowing the policy to remain in effect temporarily until the full appeals process is completed.

The Log Cabin Republicans had filed an emergency request with the nation's highest court to reverse a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the military to continue with "don't ask, don't tell" while the government appeals a lower court ruling that the law is unconstitutional.

The appeals court, in San Francisco, California, is currently debating the constitutionality of barring openly gay and lesbian members from service in the U.S. armed forces. Until the larger questions are decided, that court had allowed the current enforcement policy to remain in place, prompting the time-sensitive appeal to the high court.

The justices were, at this stage, being asked to rule only on the narrow enforcement issue. They are likely to tackle the constitutional questions after the appeals court issues its ruling if Congress or the White House do not act first to repeal the current law.

"Log Cabin Republicans are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to maintain the status quo ... but we are not surprised," said Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said in a statement. "We are committed to pursuing every avenue in the fight against this failed and unconstitutional policy."

The high court's two-paragraph order noted that Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision. As solicitor general before joining the high court in August, Kagan had been involved in preparing initial briefs in the case.

In September, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips declared the military's ban on openly gay troops to be unconstitutional. She later granted an injunction barring enforcement of the policy. The Justice Department requested a temporary stay of that ruling, which was denied by Phillips but granted by the appeals court.

The appeals court later overturned the district court's injunction.

The appellate judges also noted that legislation pending before Congress to repeal the policy would render the case before them moot. The House of Representatives already has passed a repeal provision, and the Senate may consider it as part of a broader defense authorization bill when it returns for a lame-duck session in mid-November.

The appeals court is set to hear oral arguments in the case in February. The losing side would likely ask the Supreme Court to step in once again, but the justices have the discretion not to accept the case for review.

---