Case Name: Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al BAHLUL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-20
Citations: 840 F.3d 757
Docket Number: No. 11-1324
Parties: Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al BAHLUL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
Judges: Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, BROWN, GRIFFITH, KAVANAUGH, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT, PILLARD, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 840
Pages: 757–838

Head Matter:
Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al BAHLUL, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
No. 11-1324
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued December 1, 2015
Decided October 20, 2016
Michel Paradis, Counsel, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mary R. McCormick, Kansas City, MO, and Todd E. Pierce, Counsel.
David Weissbrodt and William J. Aceves were on the brief for amici curiae International Law Scholars in support of petitioner.
J. Douglas Richards, New York, NY, was on the brief for amicus curiae National Institute of Military Justice in support of petitioner.
Robert Barton was on the brief for ami-cus curiae Professor David Glazier in support of petitioner.
Ian Heath Gershengorn, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Steven M. Dunne, Chief, Appellate Unit, and John F. De Pue and Joseph Palmer, Attorneys.
James A. Schoettler Jr. was on the brief for amici curiae Former Government Officials, Former Military Lawyers, and Scholars of National Security Law in support of respondent.
Richard A. Samp was on the brief for amici curiae John D. Altenburg, Maj. Gen., U.S. Army (Ret.), et al. in support of respondent.
Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON, ROGERS, TATEL, BROWN, GRIFFITH, KAVANAUGH, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT, PILLARD, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Chief Judge Garland was a member of the en banc court at the time the case was argued but did not participate in this opinion.
Circuit Judge Srinivasan did not participate in this matter.

Opinion:
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH, with whom Circuit Judges BROWN and GRIFFITH join.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge MILLETT.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.
Joint Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judges ROGERS, TATEL, and PILLARD.
PER CURIAM:
Bahlul is a member of al Qaeda who assisted Osama bin Laden in planning the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Bahlul was convicted by a U.S. military commission of the offense of conspiracy to commit war crimes, among other offenses. The U.S. Court of Military Commission Review affirmed Bahlul's conviction.
In a prior en banc decision, we recounted the facts and considered Bahlul's Ex Post Facto Clause objection to the conspiracy conviction. Applying plain error review, we concluded that the Ex Post Facto Clause did not preclude the conspiracy charge against Bahlul. See Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc).
In this en banc case, Bahlul argues that Articles I and III of the Constitution bar Congress from making conspiracy an offense triable by military commission, because conspiracy is not an offense under the international law of war.
We affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review upholding Bahlul's conspiracy conviction. Six judges—Judges Henderson, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh, Millett, and Wilkins— have voted to affirm. Three judges— Judges Rogers, Tatel, and Pillard—dis-sent.
Of the six-judge majority, four judges (Judges Henderson, Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh) would affirm because they conclude that, consistent with Articles I and III of the Constitution, Congress may make conspiracy to commit war crimes an offense triable by military commission. They would uphold Bahlul's conspiracy conviction on that basis.
Judge Millett would apply plain error review and affirm Bahlul's conviction under that standard of review. She would not reach the question of whether. Congress may make inchoate conspiracy an offense triable by military commission.
Judge Wilkins would affirm because he concludes that the particular features of Bahlul's conviction demonstrate that Bah-lul was not convicted of an inchoate conspiracy offense. He further concludes that Bahlul's conviction complies with the Constitution because the particular features of Bahlul's conviction have sufficient roots in international law. He therefore would not reach the question of whether Congress may make inchoate conspiracy an offense triable by military commission.
Judges Rogers, Tatel, and Pillard have filed a Joint Dissent. They conclude that Article III of the Constitution bars Congress from making inchoate conspiracy an offense triable by a law-of-war military commission.
Bahlul has also raised First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges to his conviction. The Court rejects those challenges. See Kavanaugh Concurring Op. at 770 n.12; Millett Concurring Op. at 775, 796-97; Wilkins Concurring Op. at 804. The Joint Dissent neither reaches those claims nor adopts the above characterization of the facts.
⅜ ⅜ ⅜
We affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review up: holding Bahlul's conspiracy conviction.
So ordered,