Source: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2016-term/united-states-v-ortiz/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:21:57+00:00

Document:
In the Air Force case of United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2017) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF found no error in the participation of a Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed judge of the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), who is also an Air Force Colonel, on the CCA panel that reviewed the appellant’s case. An extension of time to file a cert. petition in Ortiz was granted until June 9, 2017 (noted here).
Ortiz was a replacement for United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), also an Air Force case, which raised similar issues, was resolved on mootness grounds and is now the subject of a petition for certiorari (discussed here).
Over the past few days CAAF summarily affirmed 116 cases in light of its decision in Ortiz.
Of those 116 cases, two are from the Air Force and 114 are from the Army.
That’s not all of the trailers, however, as a small number of additional cases raising this issue are still out there (including a few that were argued this term but not yet decided.
While the court decided the case on February 9, 2017 (two days after hearing oral argument), CAAF issued its opinion in the Air Force case of United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189, No. 16-0671/AF (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on Monday, April 17, 2017. Avoiding answering more than necessary to decide the case, CAAF finds no error in the participation of a Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed judge of the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), who is also an Air Force Colonel, on the CCA panel that reviewed the appellant’s case. Ortiz is a replacement for United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), which raised similar issues, was resolved on mootness grounds, and is now the subject of a petition for certiorari (discussed here).
That the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed. The opinion of the Court will be issued on a future date. C.A.A.F. R. 43(b). A petition for reconsideration may be filed no later than days after the date of the issuance of said opinion.
United States v. Ortiz, No. 16-0671 (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.
United States v. Oliver, No. 16-0484/AF (CAAFlog case page): Oral argument audio.
I. Whether United States Court of Military Commission Review Judge, Martin T. Mitchell, is statutorily authorized to sit as one of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals judges on the panel that decided Appellant’s case.
Amended Issue: II. Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s Service on both the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Military Commission Review violates the Appointments Clause given his status as a principal officer on the United States Court of Military Commission Review.
Specified Issue: III. Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell was in fact a principal officer following his appointment by the President to the United States Court of Military Commission Review in light of the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 949b(4)(c) and (d), authorizing reassignment or withdrawal of appellate military judges so appointed by the Secretary of Defense or his designee.
Ortiz is a replacement for United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), which was resolved on mootness grounds but is now the subject of a petition for certiorari (discussed here).
The Military Commissions Act of 2009 established a new CMCR as an independent Article I court of record. See 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a). Judges are appointed to the CMCR by the President through the formal mechanism of the Appointments Clause. 10 U.S.C. §950f(b)(3). However, the Secretary of Defense may also assign “commissioned officers of armed forces” to serve as appellate judges on the CMCR. 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(2).
The Secretary of Defense assigned Air Force Colonel Martin T. Mitchell to the CMCR on October 20, 2014, and he was sworn in on October 28, 2014. Afterward, in 2015, in a decision on a petition for extraordinary relief that challenged the assignment of officers like Colonel Mitchell to the CMCR, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested that any question about the status of such assigned judges could be resolved by their nomination and confirmation by the President. In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2015). So, on March 14, 2016, the President nominated Colonel Mitchell to be a judge on the CMCR. Other military officers who were similarly nominated include: Captain Donald C. King, U.S. Navy; Colonel Larss G. Celtnieks, U.S. Army; Colonel James W. Herring, U.S. Army; and Lieutenant Colonel Paulette V. Burton, U.S. Army. 162 CONG. REC. S 1473-74 (daily ed. Mar. 14, 2016). The Senate confirmed the nominations and the Judges were appointed.
These appointments are the basis for the issues in Ortiz.
The case seemingly offers a simple question of how many robes a single judge can wear, but the briefs present a complex web of statutory, constitutional, and caselaw considerations. I’m not going to summarize them here. With the questions already raised before the Supreme Court, however, I suspect that during Tuesday’s argument CAAF is going to try to find a straightforward (if not outright easy) way to resolve these cases.
Disclosure: In my personal capacity I represent an appellant whose case is one of the 85 trailer cases with similar issues.
In United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), CAAF found that a challenge to the participation of a judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR) on the panel of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was moot because the judge had not yet been appointed as a USCMCR judge when the CCA decided the case.
WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL’S SERVICE ON BOTH THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW VIOLATES THE APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GIVEN HIS STATUS AS A PRINCIPAL OFFICER ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW.
III. WHETHER JUDGE MARTIN T. MITCHELL WAS IN FACT A PRINCIPAL OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS APPOINTMENT BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. § 949b(4)(C) AND (D), AUTHORIZING REASSIGNMENT OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPELLATE MILITARY JUDGES SO APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OR HIS DESIGNEE.
The parties will file contemporaneous briefs and a joint appendix on the granted issues as amended and the specified issue on or before January 24, 2017. Reply briefs will not be filed. Amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(1) will be filed on or before January 24, 2017, and motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will be filed on or before January 17, 2017. Should said motions be granted, amicus curiae briefs under Rule 26(a)(3) will also be filed on or before January 24, 2017.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE WRONGLY APPLIED MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 TO CHARGED MISCONDUCT, THEREBY LOWERING THE GOVERNMENT’S BURDEN OF PROOF AND VIOLATING APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
By my count, including trailers granted yesterday, CAAF has granted review of the CMCR judge issue in 71 69 cases (including Dalmazzi). Of those, 61 are from the Army, 8 are from the Air Force, and 2 are from the Navy (Navy cases wrongly counted; see comments).
Dalmazzi was an Air Force case, but considering that the overwhelming majority of granted cases involving this issue are from the Army, I think it’s strange that CAAF would decide to hear argument in another Air Force case instead of an Army case.
Disclosure: In my personal capacity I represent an Army appellant whose case is before CAAF with CMCR judge issues.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 949
 v. 
 § 950
 §950
 § 950
 V. 
 v. 
 § 949