9th circuit wants to really really really really make sure that no one considers whether DADT is constitutional

First, a snippet of the 9th circuit's ruling in the Log Cabin case, with a quick response from Art Leonard, a law professor (via Rex Wockner):

9th Circuit:

"We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court. ... Because Log Cabin has stated its intention to use the district court's judgment collaterally, we will be clear: It may not. Nor may its members or anyone else. We vacate the district court's judgment, injunction, opinions, orders, and factual findings -- indeed, all of its past rulings -- to clear the path completely for any future litigation. Those now-void legal rulings and factual findings have no precedential, preclusive, or binding effect. The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell provides Log Cabin with all it sought and may have had standing to obtain."

Leonard's analysis:

Rex, the 9th Circuit has just released a decision vacating the decision as moot and remanding for dismissal. The decision says in no uncertain terms that the district court decision is done away with and cannot be cited as precedent by anyone for any reason.

Art Leonard (who is a law professor...rw)

This seems a bit odd. I get that they can say it's moot - i.e., the defendant isn't harmed if he's no longer being kicked out, or no longer being stopped from re-enlisting, but it does seem odd that they'd say the district court ruling shouldn't serve as any precedent at all. Repeal might have made the impact of that ruling moot - because you can now enlist or re-enlist - and it may have made the harm alleged in the ruling moot (being at risk of getting kicked out), but repeal doesn't go to the question of whether DADT is constitutional or not, so it strikes me as somewhat odd that the court is so vehemently interested in making sure no one looks at the ruling of the earlier court.

And it's not entirely clear that repeal = no harm.  A lot of people have "homosexual" in their discharge papers, and that can potentially cause harm when you go looking for a job.  Also, a lot of other people have had their retirement pay docked after being discharged under DADT, and have been required to repay their military college tuition and training expenses.  And the Obama administration has done nothing to change that.  Those damages still remain post-appeal.  So, constitutionality would seem relevant even with repeal.  There is a present harm.  (Not to mention those who lose their jobs as a result of the unconstitutional policy.)