of law relating to military retirement or separation of anyone determined to be essential. It was pursuant to this provision and executive order that Craig was, after some confusion, ordered to Saudi Arabia. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, based on 50 App. U.S.C. § 454(c)(1), which forbids involuntary extensions of enlistments unless Congress (not merely the President) declares war or a national emergency. The Court noted that Craig was relying on 50 App. U.S.C. § 454(c)(1), while the government was relying on 10 U.S.C. § 673c, the two provisions apparently in conflict. The Court sided with the government, primarily on the ground that 10 U.S.C. 673c was enacted more recently than 50 App. U.S.C. §454(c)(1), based on the presumptions that Congress was aware of the earlier law when it enacted the later law, and that the later law effectively amended or repealed the earlier law notwithstanding the sections were in different locations in the codification. Further, the Court was reluctant, when the provisions were in evident conflict, to impair the President's ability to respond to a matter of national security. The first legal challenge to the contemporary stop-loss policy came in August 2004, with a lawsuit by David Qualls, a National Guardsman in California. Qualls argued the military breached his enlistment contract by involuntarily extending his term of service. However, his arguments were rejected by Judge Royce C. Lamberth and the case was dismissed. Qualls' case was not appealed. In October 2004, a "John Doe" lawsuit was filed by an anonymous National Guardsman facing stop-loss, challenging the validity of the law that authorized it. This suit was dismissed at trial and the court's findings were upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit also rejected a similar appeal in Santiago v. Rumsfeld in May 2005. Government response Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as one of his first acts in his position (he assumed the office December 18, 2006), penned a memo compelling commanders to "minimize" the stop-lossing of soldiers. The United States Army states that enlisted soldiers facing stop-loss can now voluntarily separate by request, under provision 3-12, but only after they complete an involuntary deployment of twelve to fifteen months and 90 days stabilization time (time allowed to "out-process" from the military) can they apply. This refers to an Army policy dated Sept. 5, 2002. It allowed enlisted soldiers under stop-loss to