Not in the case below. One of the chamber of horrors arguments against allowing basic habeas petitions to Gitmo detainees was that allowing them would lead to court orders regulating prison conditions, etc.

Perhaps, some judge will enter that arena, but Judge Urbina declined.

Analysis: What did Boumediene strike down?
Thursday, August 7th, 2008 8:11 pm Lyle Denniston
....
Analysis

The Supreme Court, in moving in June to clarify the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, made this explicit comment in the main opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195): “The only law we identify as unconstitutional is MCA Sec. 7, 28 USCA 2241(e)(Supp. 2007).” The MCA is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and Section 7(e) is the so-called “court-stripping” provision - Congress’s now partially failed effort to scuttle all habeas rights of the detainees.

There are, however, two parts to Section 7(e). As lower court judges move to apply Boumediene, they are discovering what one judge on Thursday described as an “ambiguity” in that ruling.
....
In the end, using his discretion (which he presumably retained, since he did not find a lack of jurisdiction), the judge balanced the claims of the detainees to some relief from their “nearly seven years” of confinement without a trial with the government’s reliance on what he called “the ambiguity” in Boumediene, and the Pentagon’s need to keep control of security at the Guantanamo prison. He refused to order the six prisoners moved out of Camp 6 to Camp 4.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysi...e-strike-down/

Judge Urbina's opinion is here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-cont...urs-8-7-08.pdf