# U n i ted S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015 CMCR -09-00 1 Filed O n: Sep tem ber 2 5, 2 015 Ali Ham z a A hm ad Sulim an al Ba hlul,

Pet itione r
v . United Sta tes o f

Am erica, Respo nde nt BEFORE: Garlan d, Ch ief Jud ge; Hend erson , Rogers, T ate l, Brown, Grif f ith, K avanau gh, Srinivasan*, Mill ett, Pillard, a nd W ilkins, Circuit Judges O R D E R Upon con siderat ion o f

the pe tition of

the United Sta tes o f

Am erica for rehe aring en ban c, th e resp onse the reto, an d th e vote in favor of the pe tition by a m ajority of the judges e lig ible to pa rticipate , it is ORDERED tha t th e p etition be granted . T his case w ill be reh eard by the court sitting en ban c. Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e jud gmen t f iled Ju ne 12, 20 15, be vacated . Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t ora l argume nt b efore t he en ban c cou rt be he ard T uesd ay, Decem ber 1 , 20 15, at 9:3 0 a .m . Itis FURTHER ORDERED tha t, in add ition t o f iling briefs an d th e a ppe ndix electro nically, the p arties f ile 30 pa per co pies e ach of the briefs an d a ppe ndix, in accord ance w ith th e followi ng sched ule: Brief for Pe titione r Bah lul Octob er 13 , 20 15 App end ix Octob er 13 , 20 15 Am icus Curiae Brief

in Sup port of

Pe titione r (if a ny) Octob er 13 , 20 15
* Circuit Jud ge Sriniv asan did notpa rticipate in th is ma tter.

# U n i ted S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015

Brief for Resp ond entUnited Sta tes Novembe r 2, 2 015 Am icus Curiae Brief

in Sup port of

Respo nde nt (if

an y ) Novembe r 2, 2 015 Reply Brief

for Pe titione r Bah lul Novembe r 12, 20 15 It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t in a dditio n to oth er issue s raised in th e p etition of the United Sta tes for rehe aring en ban c, th e p arties a re spe cif ically directe d to ad dress in the ir briefs the followi ng: (1) T he stan dard of

ap pellat e review

of Ba hlul’s con v iction for con spiracy to com mit w ar crime s. See , e. g., W ellness Int’

l Network, L td. v. Sh arif , 13 5 S . Ct. 1 932 (201 5); CFTC v. Scho r , 47 8 U.S . 83 3 (19 86); and (2) W het her t he Def ine a nd Pun ish Clause of Article I of

the Const itution giv es Congress po w er to de f ine a s an Of fense against the La w

of Nation s -- triable b efore a law -of-w ar m ilitary

com mission -- a con spiracy to com mit an Of fense against the La w

of Nation s, to w it, a consp iracy to com mit w ar crime s; an d whethe r the exercise of such power transgresses A rticle III of the Const itution

. Beca use the brief ing sched ule is ke y ed to t he dat e o f argume nt, the cou rt w ill grantrequests for extensio n o f tim e lim its on ly

for extraordina rily

com pelling reaso ns. In a dditio n to elect ronic f iling, parties a nd am ici curiae a re directe d to ha nd deliver their briefs an d a ppe ndix to th e Clerk’s of f ice on the da te d ue. T he briefs an d a ppe ndix mu st cont ain t he dat e th at t he case is sched uled for oral a rg um entat the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 2 8(a)(8). A se para te o rder wi ll issue regarding alloca tion of oral a rg um enttim e. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Depu ty Cl erk
Page 2