As CAAFlog noted below, Judge Boyle rejected MSgt Hennis’ habeas corpus petition asking the US District Court to intervene to stop his court-martial.  Opinion available here.  Judge Boyle finds that MSgt Hennis’ argument regarding break in service does not make him similarly situated with civilians, whom the Supreme Court has said in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Toth v. Quarles (and Price v. Gates for that matter) are not subject to the same exhaustion requirements as servicemembers.  Judge Boyle finds, quoting Councilman v. Schlesinger,  that:

The issues Hennis has raised before this court may be plausible defenses at the court martial, as well as, appealable issues if the outcome ends in a conviction.  Attempting to resolve any of these questions would be inappropriate at this time with a court martial in progress.  Therefore, as the circumstances are set out, this court, like that in Councilman, “discerns nothing that outweighs the strong considerations favoring exhaustion of remedies or that warrants intruding on the integrity of the military court processes.”

Opening statements in the court-martial are today, see latest here.

One Response to “Hennis Habeas Denied”

  1. Gene Fidell says:

    The district court never attempts to explain why Hennis does not have a break in service that bars this court-martial under Hirshberg. “[T]he question is one of material fact mired in time lines, expiration of term of service dates (“ETS”), discharge dates, re-enlistment dates, the military code, and military regulations.” [P. 9] “Mired”? What’s so tough to decide? One would think the issue lends itself to summary judgment. Moreover, it’s irrelevant that Hennis “had a long military career,” if there was a break in service. This judge should have reached and decided the merits of the Hirshberg claim.