|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-961||C.A.A.F.||Jan 16, 2018||Jun 22, 2018||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2017|
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).
Judgment: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted in a per curiam opinion on June 22, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 01 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 6, 2017)|
|Feb 09 2017||Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.|
|Feb 15 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.|
|Feb 22 2017||Response Requested. (Due March 24, 2017)|
|Feb 24 2017||Supplemental brief of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi filed.|
|Mar 16 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 24, 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. VIDED.|
|May 19 2017||Reply of petitioner Nicole A. Dalmazzi 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. 16-1017 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 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.|
|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 Nicole A.Dalmazzi filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|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.|
|May 23 2018||Letter of petitioners Nicole A.Dalmazzi, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jun 04 2018||Letter of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jun 22 2018||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jul 24 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Just in: The next Supreme Court opinion day will be next Monday. The court expects to release one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.
End of an era: Here is NBC News prez Noah Oppenheim's memo about Pete Williams' plan to retire this summer
The Supreme Court sides with Sen. Ted Cruz in his First Amendment challenge to a federal campaign-finance law that limits how and when candidates can recoup loans that they make to their own campaigns. The vote is 6-3 along ideological lines.
In an immigration case, SCOTUS rules 5-4 that federal courts do NOT have jurisdiction to review certain executive-branch factual findings that determine whether non-citizens are eligible for "adjustment of status." Those findings can dictate whether a person is deported.
SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases: Jones v. Hendrix (a habeas corpus case) and SEC v. Cochran (a case about the power of district courts to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC's administrative law proceedings). Full order list here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051622zor_hgcj.pdf
We're live now on SCOTUSblog's homepage or at https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. EDT. But first, orders on pending petitions at 9:30. We'll fire up our live blog at 9:25 to break it all down and answer your questions. Grab some ☕️ and come join us: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/05/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-monday-may-16/