Judge Again Bars Military Gay Ban : Government: Attorneys for sailor say ruling will block Clinton Administration’s policy. The Defense Department will appeal.

Reiterating an earlier ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles barred the government Thursday from discharging gay men and lesbians from the military or treating them differently in any way because of their sexual orientation.

U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter Jr. also warned Department of Defense attorneys that if the government violates his order and is found in contempt, officials will face fines of at least $10,000 a day.

Attorneys for a gay sailor who is challenging the military policy were delighted, saying the judge’s unequivocal order will block the Clinton Administration’s new policy on gays in the military as well as congressional attempts to write the gay ban into law.

“It’s much more than I hoped for,” said John McGuire, an attorney for Navy Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, who is assigned to Moffett Field Naval Air Station near San Jose. Referring to the new policy, he added, “I trust the Department of Defense won’t implement ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ ”

Federal attorneys who appeared before Hatter on Thursday declined comment, but Pentagon sources said the Defense Department would immediately appeal the order.

In previous rulings in the case, Hatter ordered Meinhold reinstated after his discharge for homosexuality and declared the military’s gay ban unconstitutional. Arguing that the government was ignoring his order, Meinhold’s attorneys asked Hatter to hold the government in contempt.

Hatter declined to do that Thursday, instead issuing a three-page amendment of his original order that left military officials little room for doubt about what he expected of them.

Among other things, the order permanently bars the Department of Defense from discharging gays or “taking any actions whatsoever . . . against gay or lesbian service members, or prospective service members, that in any way affects, impedes, interferes with, or influences their military status, advancement, evaluation, duty assignment, duty location, promotion, enlistment or re-enlistment based upon their sexual orientation in the absence of proven sexual conduct--if such conduct is proven to interfere with the military mission of the armed forces of the United States.”

Hatter further declared “that sexual status alone is not sufficient to establish sexual conduct,” a statement that touches on the new Administration policy, which was scheduled to take effect today but may be delayed until Congress takes final action on the issue.

Under the Administration’s revised regulations, recruits will no longer be asked about their sexual orientation. But if a service member says he or she is gay, the presumption is that they will engage in illegal homosexual conduct--and would thus be subject to discharge.

The next step for the government will be to go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an injunction stopping enforcement of Hatter’s order while the case makes its way through the appeals process--something the circuit court has twice previously refused to do. If the government again fails to win a stay, it could ask the Supreme Court to intervene. If a higher court does not grant a stay, the question will arise of whether the ruling of a federal district judge applies nationwide. “It’s a muddy issue,” observed Julian Eule, associate dean of the UCLA law school.