He sued the U.S. Department of Defense, claiming that his oral avowal of homosexuality could not be construed as an indication that he ever had or intended to engage in sexual relations with another man.
[4] When his deposition was taken, Steffan refused to respond to questions about whether he had ever "engaged in homosexual acts" as defined by the Navy: "Bodily contact actively undertaken or passively permitted between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires."
His decision held that the government's exclusion of homosexuals from the Armed Forces "is rational in that it is directed, in part, at preventing those who are at the greatest risk of dying of AIDS from serving.
Gasch also found the policy reflected "The quite rational assumption in the Navy ... that with no one present who has a homosexual orientation, men and women alike can undress, sleep, bathe and use the bathroom without fear or embarrassment that they are being viewed as sexual objects.
"[9] On Inauguration Day, January 20, 1993, Steffan sang the national anthem at the Triangle Ball, a gala for homosexuals celebrating the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency.
The court said that the military's new policy on military service by open gays and lesbians, "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT), was not under review, yet the court held that the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment did not permit the Government to remove members of the armed services merely because they say they are homosexuals, a holding that directly contradicted DADT.
In the decision in the case, now called Steffan v. Aspin, Judge Abner J. Mikva wrote:[15] A cardinal principle of equal protection law holds that the Government cannot discriminate against a certain class in order to give effect to the prejudice of others.
Such discrimination plays directly into the hands of the bigots; it ratifies and encourages their prejudice.Constitutional principles mandate that Government may not disadvantage a person on the basis of his status or his views solely for fear that others may be offended or angered by them.
That is precisely the substance of the Secretary's argument in this case: that heterosexual service members and potential recruits will be offended by the presence of homosexuals, and this will affect their morale, discipline and enlistment.
[16] Government attorneys debated how to proceed, given the narrowness of the decision and uncertainty about its application to the military's new DADT policy, which had replaced the rules under which Steffan had been discharged.
[17] In January 1994, however, the Appeals Court suspended the panel's order in Steffan's favor and rejected the government's request that it limit its review to the separation of powers question and refrain from considering the policy's constitutionality.
Judge Patricia Wald, writing for the minority, said:[21] For the Government to penalize a person for acknowledging his sexual orientation runs deeply against our constitutional grain.
It has, we believe, no precedent or place in our national traditions, which spring from a profound respect for the freedom to think and to be what one chooses and to announce it to the world.
In years to come, we will look back with dismay at these unconstitutional attempts to enforce silence upon individuals of homosexual orientation, in the military and out.
[21] One legal analysis of the case suggested that advocates of LGBT rights needed to develop arguments other than the "contortion" of the distinction between status and conduct used by Steffan's attorneys.
[23] Steffan and his fellow students eventually won the lawsuit they had brought to deny military recruiters access to their Connecticut Law School.
Under federal government's Solomon Amendment, the state was facing the loss of $70 million in grants and student aid.
He donated his papers related to his suit for reinstatement in the Navy to the University of Connecticut Law School archives.