|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1017||C.A.A.F.||Jan 16, 2018||Jun 22, 2018||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that petitioners' claims—which asserted that a judge's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies him or her from continuing to serve on either the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii)—were moot; (2) whether these judges' service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies them from continuing to serve on the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether the judges' simultaneous service on both the U.S Court of Military Commission Review and the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals violates the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Dalmazzi v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on June 22, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 21 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 27, 2017)|
|Mar 22 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 26, 2017.|
|Apr 19 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 15, 2017.|
|May 15 2017||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|May 19 2017||Reply of petitioner Laith G. Cox filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|Sep 28 2017||Petition GRANTED, and the petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 16-961 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 2017||Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 07 2017||Brief of petitioners filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 14 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Aditya Bamzai in support of neither party filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018. VIDED|
|Nov 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 07 2017||Brief of respondent United States filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 14 2017||Motion of Aditya Bamzai for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 18 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A for the Armed Forces.|
|Jan 05 2018||Motion of Professor Aditya Bamzai for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for Professor Aditya Bamzai, and 30 minutes for respondent. VIDED|
|Jan 05 2018||Reply of petitioner Laith G.Cox filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the Armed Forces. (2 Boxes). Box 2 of 2 is SEALED.|
|Jan 10 2018||Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2018||Argued. For petitioners: Stephen I. Vladeck, Austin, Tex. For Professor Aditya Bamzai as amicus curiae: Aditya Bamzai, Charlottesville, VA. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 22 2018||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jun 25 2018||The record from the Department of the Army has been returned.|
|Jul 24 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.