Dalmazzi v. United States

Consolidated with:

Docket No.
Op. Below
Argument
Jan 16, 2018
Opinion
TBD
Vote
TBD
Author
TBD
Term

Issues: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that the petitioner's challenge to Judge Martin T. Mitchell's continued service on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, after he was nominated and confirmed to the Article I U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, was moot – because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the U.S. Air Force CCA decided her case on the merits, even though she moved for reconsideration after the commission was signed; (2) whether Judge Mitchell's service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), which requires express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a “civil office,” including positions that require “an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”; (3) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Feb 01 2017Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2017)
Feb 09 2017Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Feb 15 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.
Feb 22 2017Response Requested. (Due March 24, 2017)
Feb 24 2017Supplemental brief of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi filed.
Mar 16 2017Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 24, 2017.
Apr 19 2017Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 15, 2017.
May 15 2017Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
May 19 2017Reply of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi filed. VIDED.
Sep 06 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
Sep 28 2017Petition GRANTED, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 16-1017 and 16-1423 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. In addition to the questions presented by the petitions, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the cases in Nos. 16-961 and 16-1017 under 28 U. S. C. § 1259(3).
Nov 07 2017Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)
Nov 07 2017Brief of petitioners filed. VIDED.
Nov 14 2017Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai filed. VIDED.
Nov 17 2017SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY