Just in: “A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected a Pasco [WA] National Guardsman’s lawsuit to stop the military from extending his service.”
Update [2005-4-7 9:48:34 by susanhbu]: Today’s Seattle PI: It’s a “victory for the Bush administration.”
From The Seattle Times, “Court rejects National Guardsman’s lawsuit,” Wednesday, April 6, 2005 – Page updated at 05:38 p.m
Santiago, 27, who works as an electrical technician at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, is to be sent to Afghanistan on Friday.
The case was the highest court review of the military’s controversial “stop-loss” policy by which deployments are involuntarily extended.
It is unclear whether Santiago will continue to appeal his case while serving overseas.
Background story: Stopping ‘Stop-Loss’, Seattle Weekly (“The federal 9th Circuit Court is coming to Seattle to hear the case of a National Guard soldier forced to stay on.”)
The judges also heard arguments in a Navy wife’s fight to have the military pay for an abortion she had after learning that her fetus was developing without a brain and had little chance of survival. The Everett woman, identified only as Jane Doe in court documents, won approval for federal coverage of abortion costs two years ago. Justice Department attorney August Flentje on Wednesday asked the 9th Circuit panel to reverse that ruling, arguing that federal law is “straight forward and well established” in forbidding use of public funds for abortion unless the mother’s life is endangered, or in… Read more »
At least so far, there’s not a lot to go on regarding the reasoning behind this ruling. The Ninth Circuit panel only issued a summary order: The appellant’s urgent motion for injunction pending appeal which seeks to join his deployment to Afghanistan is DENIED. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. An opinion or opinions will follow in due course. We’ll have to see what’s actually in the opinion(s). It’s notable that the panel indicated that there might be more than one opinion — this could be a sign that one of the judges will be dissenting. Interestingly, the… Read more »