The opinion of the court was delivered by: Colleen Kollar-kotelly United States District Judge
Presently pending before the Court is  Petitioner David M. Hicks's Motion to Stay Military Commission Proceedings ("Motion to Stay"). Petitioner effectively asks the Court to enjoin military commission proceedings against Petitioner in Guantanamo Bay until both the Supreme Court has issued a final and ultimate decision in the appeal of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and until this Court has issued an order with respect to Petitioner's pending  Revised Brief in Support of Petitioner David M. Hicks's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion for Partial Summary Judgment") in this case. Respondents, in their  Respondents' Opposition to Petitioner's Motion to "Stay" Military Commission Proceedings ("Opposition"), oppose Petitioner's Motion to Stay. Petitioner then filed  Petitioner, David M. Hicks's Reply in Further Support of his Motion to Stay Military Commission Proceedings. After careful consideration of the aforementioned pleadings and Petitioner's  Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive, Declaratory and Other Relief, the Court shall enjoin Respondents from going forward with any and all legal proceedings associated with the military commission process with respect to Petitioner and shall stay the case presently before the Court until the Supreme Court has issued a final and ultimate decision in Hamdan.
In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon various targets in the United States, the U.S. military commenced operations in Afghanistan with the assistance of the Northern Alliance and Coalition forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in October of 2001. Petitioner David M. Hicks, an Australian citizen, was captured by the Northern Alliance and subsequently transferred to U.S. custody. 2d Am. Pet. ¶ 21. Petitioner was transported to Guantanamo Bay in January of 2002, where he has been detained in various facilities until the present time. Id. ¶¶ 8, 22.
On July 3, 2003, Respondent President George W. Bush "designated [Petitioner] as a person eligible for trial before the commission." Id. ¶ 26. On June 10, 2004, Petitioner was publicly charged with three offenses to be tried by military commission: Conspiracy, Attempted Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent, and Aiding the Enemy. 2d Am. Pet. ¶ 29, Exh. 2 (Charge Sheet ¶¶ 19-22). The conspiracy charge more specifically alleged that Petitioner conspired and agreed with members of Al Qaeda to commit the following offenses: attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, murder by an unprivileged belligerent, destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent, and terrorism. 2d Am. Pet.at Exh. 2 (Charge Sheet ¶ 19). These charges were referred to the military commission on June 25, 2004. 2d Am. Pet.at Exh. 7. At an appearance before the military commission on August 25, 2004, Hicks pleaded not guilty to all charges. Pet'r's Mot. Summ. Judg. at 8.
Petitioner originally filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Court on February 19, 2002. Petitioner filed an amended petition on March 18, 2002. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), the Court granted Petitioner leave to file a second amended petition, which was submitted to the Court on September 28, 2004 and is the presently operative petition in this case. In Petitioner's Second Amended Petition, Petitioner's claims for relief are premised on the lack of jurisdiction of the military commission designated to try Petitioner; the illegality of the manner in which the commission is constituted; the invalidity of the charges brought against Petitioner; the illegality of the procedures employed by the military commission; the violation of equal protection caused as a result of Petitioner's trial before a military commission as a result of his non-citizen status; and various charges related to Petitioner's classification, interrogation, and detention as an enemy combatant (including speedy trial-related allegations). 2d Am. Pet. ¶¶ 41-112.
The Appointing Authority for Military Commissions stayed the military commission proceedings in Petitioner's case via a December 10, 2004 directive in response to Judge James Robertson's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004), which invalidated the military commission proceedings at issue. A stay in Petitioner's military commission proceedings was issued pending an appellate decision in Hamdan by the D.C. Circuit. As a result, motions before this Court related to the military commission hearings were stayed by the Court on April 21, 2005, "pending a ruling from the Circuit Court in Hamdan." The D.C. Circuit then reversed Judge Robertson's decision in Hamdan, holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), that the military commission process did not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it was backed by sufficient congressional authorization and that the Geneva Convention did not confer upon Hamdan a federal right to enforce its provisions. At the request of the parties in this case, this Court lifted the stay on August 5, 2005 with respect to Petitioner's challenges before this Court to military commission proceedings.
Once the stay in the proceedings before this Court was lifted, Petitioner initially filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 17, 2005, requesting that the Court grant summary judgment in favor of Petitioner on the military commission-related claims of its Second Amended Petition, including constitutional claims, by "determin[ing] now that the commission proceedings against Mr. Hicks are illegal." Pet'r's Mot. Summ. J. at 77. More specifically, Petitioner requested that "the Court find illegal the operation of a military commission seeking to try him for newly-invented military crimes . . . ." Id.at 1. In asking the Court to declare that military commission proceedings against Petitioner are invalid, Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment essentially asked the Court to make five separate determinations. Petitioner asked the Court to hold that the military commission lacks the authority to try Petitioner because allegedly 1) the military commission does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner for the particular offenses with which he is charged; 2) military commission procedures violate the Due Process Clause; 3) trial of Petitioner before a military commission violates the Equal Protection Clause because U.S. citizens accused of similar offenses are not subject to trial before a military commission; 4) the military commission itself is invalidity constituted under statutory, regulatory, and constitutional law; and 5) trial before a military commission this far removed in time from Petitioner's capture would violate Petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Id. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 17, 2005, requesting that "the Court  dismiss and enter judgment for respondents on petitioner's military commission claims and otherwise deny petitioner's requests for injunctive and other relief related to military commission proceedings." Resp'ts' Mot. Dismiss at 1. Respondents alleged that the D.C. Circuit's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), resolved the jurisdictional and many of the procedural claims raised by Petitioner both by establishing that the President had authority to establish military commissions and that the courts should abstain initially on procedural issues such as how such commission hearings are conducted. Id.
On September 20, 2005, the Appointing Authority in Petitioner's military commission case reinitiated proceedings against Petitioner. Pet'r's Mot. Stay at 4. An initial hearing in Petitioner's military commission proceedings was thereafter scheduled for November 18, 2005 in Guantanamo Bay for the purpose of deciding pre-trial motions with a trial date to follow. Id. at 5.
While this Court was considering Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hamdan on November 7, 2005. Consequently, Petitioner filed the present motion before this Court, Petitioner's  Motion to Stay Military Commission Proceedings, on November 8, 2005, asking the Court to "stay" military commission proceedings related to Petitioner until after the Supreme Court has made a final decision in Hamdan and until after this Court has ruled on Petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Petitioner asserts that he has a right to have his claim that the military commission has no jurisdiction to try him reviewed prior to any proceedings occurring before said military commission. Mot. Stay at 2. Furthermore, Petitioner claims that if he were subjected to proceedings via military commission prior to a Supreme Court ruling, which he argues will find the commission process illegitimate, he would forever lose his right to never appear before the commission. Id. Respondents filed their Opposition on November 10, 2005, arguing that Petitioner had not met the standard for injunctive relief and that further delay in going forward with military commission proceedings would harm Respondents and run counter to the public interest. Resp'ts' Opp'n at 2-5. Petitioner's Reply was filed on November 14, 2005.
A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate at least some irreparable injury because " '[t]he basis of injunctive relief in the federal courts has always been irreparable harm.' " CityFed Financial Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974)). Thus, if the movant makes no showing of irreparable injury, "that alone is sufficient" for a district court to refuse to grant preliminary injunctive relief. Id.; see also Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("We believe that analysis of [irreparable harm] disposes of these motions and, therefore, address only whether the petitioners have demonstrated that in the absence of a stay, they will suffer irreparable harm."). In this Circuit, injury is irreparable only if it is "both certain and great." Wisconsin Gas, 758 F.2d at 674. This requires that the alleged harm "be actual and not theoretical" and " 'of such imminence that there is a "clear and present" need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.' " Id. (quoting Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F. Supp. 297, 307 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (internal citation omitted)).
In addition to determining whether irreparable injury would occur if an injunction were not granted, a court must look at three other factors in assessing whether to grant injunctive relief: (1) whether an injunction would substantially injure other interested parties; (2) whether the public interest would be furthered by the injunction; and (3) whether the movant is substantially likely to succeed on the merits. See Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting CityFed Fin., 58 F.3d at 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). In applying this four-factored standard, no single factor is dispositive; rather the Court "must balance the strengths of the requesting party's arguments in each of the four required areas." CityFed, 58 F.3d at 747. This calculus reflects a sliding-scale approach in which an injunction may issue if the arguments for one factor are particularly strong "even if the arguments in other areas are rather weak." Id.
Furthermore, "[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held." Univ. of ...