"But the bottom line is whether a soldier's enlistment contract contains an explicit extension authorization or cites relevant law that grants extension authorization."
I heard a short analysis of his suit which indicated; the power to extend enlistment contracts need to be in either (1) a time of war (declared by Congress), or (2) in a time of 'national emergency' (again a formal declaration must exist), and that this extension is in violation of those particulars. I'm not sure about the contract specifics or the suit, I'm working on partial-at best information which is being filtered by both sides.
I would hope there is someone here that knows more about the specifics concerning the legal issues involved.
Stop-loss has been used a number of times in the last few presidencies to my recollection. I was in Korea during Gulf War I, and stop-loss was in effect then for soldiers in the Gulf and in Korea.
Stop loss by specialty was used in Bosnia and Kosovo and also in the last few years up until now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My guess is that it's used so often and so frequently because it's a legitimate authority. After all....Bosnia/Kosovo was absolutely not a national emergency by any stretch of the imagination.
I'd suggest we look at the Congressional authorization of Sep 18, 2001. I'm guessing there's more than enough ammunition there to keep anyone in service for an extended period of time.