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 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 cases of rape or incest.
Doe’s attorney, Rita Latsinova, argued that by denying her client money to pay for an abortion, she ultimately would have been “denied what she most needs.”
Doe decided an abortion was best after learning in 2002 that the baby had anencephaly, a fatal neural tube defect that causes a fetus to develop without a forebrain, cerebellum or cranium.
She won approval for federal coverage of the costs two years ago in U.S. District Court, and the pregnancy was terminated. The military’s Tricare medical system was later ordered to pay for the $3,000 procedure.
It could be months before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit panel rules in that case.
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 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 Ninth Circuit also took the unusual step of issuing what amounts to a press release on the decision.
As the Post-Intelligencer story indicates, and the court’s docket makes clear, Santiago has already filed a “request for initial hearing en banc on motion for reconsideration of denial of urgent motion for injunction in the form of a letter.” Seeing as how this is categorized as a habeas case, there’s still an outside chance that the circuit court, acting en banc, could agree to hear the case and grant the motion for injunction. Unlikely, but possible.