Appointments Clause Violation

By: Derek Hawkins//July 11, 2018//

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court

Case Name: Oritz v. United States

Case No.: 16-1423

Focus: Appointments Clause Violation

This case is about the legality of a military officer serving as a judge on both an Air Force appeals court and the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR). The petitioner, an airman convicted of crimes in the military justice system, contends that the judge’s holding of dual offices violated a statute regulating military service, as well as the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rejected those claims, and we granted a petition for certiorari. We hold first that this Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the CAAF, even though it is not an Article III court. We then affirm the CAAF’s determination that the judge’s simultaneous service was lawful.

Affirmed

Dissenting: ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined.

Concurring: THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event