Extended enlistment challenged in suits

If the Bush administration can't show that the occupation of Iraq is protecting America from terrorists, then there's no legal basis to keep reservists on active duty and require them to serve in that country, according to a lawsuit filed by a California national guardsman in Sacramento, Calif., federal court.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
If the Bush administration can’t show that the occupation of Iraq is protecting America from terrorists, then there’s no legal basis to keep reservists on active duty and require them to serve in that country, according to a lawsuit filed by a California national guardsman in Sacramento, Calif., federal court. The suit challenges the Army’s “stop-loss” policy of involuntarily extending enlistments to cover military personnel needs-the so-called “backdoor draft” criticized by U.S. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, in the second and third presidential debates. Doe v. Rumsfeld, No. CIV S-04-2080. The Pentagon issued its latest stop-loss order in June, delaying separations and retirements and requiring tens of thousands of guardsmen to return to combat duty well beyond their agreed-upon active service. Stop-loss, say Army officials, ensures effective mobilizations and keeps on active duty personnel essential to readiness, and it will be used as needed as long as a national emergency exists. Writ of habeas The Sacramento suit, filed earlier this month, and a twin action filed in San Francisco federal court in August, Doe v. Rumsfeld, No. C 04 3361, are framed as petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or declaratory relief to release the guardsmen, on the grounds that stop-loss extensions are invalid, violate the soldiers’ right to due process and breach the terms of their enlistment contracts. The challenge was mounted by the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild, in association with the Law Offices of Michael S. Sorgen, based in San Francisco. The office’s Joshua Sondheimer, who is representing the guardsmen pro bono, said the guild had chosen Sorgen because of his success with Vietnam-era draft challenges. Guild spokeswoman Marguerite Hiken said, “We are asking the federal court to uphold their lawful rights and not allow the Army to create a new category of indentured servitude.” The suits argue that the authority for the stop-loss policy is Executive Order No. 13223, issued days after the 2001 terrorist attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. It authorizes the U.S. secretary of defense to order the Ready Reserve of the armed forces to active duty “to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks.” However, the Sacramento suit states, “Iraq no longer poses any threat of terrorism against the United States, if it ever did.” The involuntary extension of the guardsman’s enlistment to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq bears no reasonable relationship to the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States, the suit alleges, so the stop-loss order exceeds the purpose of the executive order and must be declared invalid. Lt. Col. Michael Jones, chief of recruiting and retention at National Guard headquarters in Washington, responded that the suits represent the views of “only two individuals out of the 200,000 who are taking this action.” Attorney Sondheimer confirmed that he knows of only his two suits and is “surprised” there have not been more. He noted there is a related suit filed by a Capt. Todd Parrish on July 8 in federal court in Raleigh, N.C. Parrish v. Brownlee, No. 5:04-CV-459-FL(1). Parrish maintains he cannot be deployed with his unit to Iraq because he has already served the eight years called for in his ROTC contract. Parrish’s attorney, Mark Waple of Fayetteville, N.C.’s Waple & Associates, said he had been contacted by about 35 other attorneys around the country who are considering suits, but have not yet filed actions.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.