Court Opinion

ID: 9836894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:25.213278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.211044
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
In this case, the question is directly presented to our Court — can one of our four lower appellate courts disregard one of our Court’s precedents? This is the core question in the first certified issue. I would answer it. The majority doesn’t. I would answer it because the answer is important to the viability of the doctrine of stare decisis in our system of justice in the military. The simple answer to the question is that our Court’s precedents, as a rule, must be followed by the courts below.* However, in the special circumstances of United States v. Harris, 19 MJ 331 (CMA 1985), the court below was not bound or controlled by its reasoning.
United States v. Harris was a two-judge decision of this Court. One of the judges concurred in the result and stated that he agreed in the disposition of Issue II. “Disposition” is a judicial term of art referring to the result, and not to reasoning. See B.E. Witkin, Manual on Appellate Court Opinions § 83 at 147 (1977) (“After the legal questions have been determined, the only remaining element of the opinion is a brief statement indicating the disposition of the appeal. This feature should not be brushed off too lightly, however, as lack of precision here may make more work for the appellate court.”) (emphasis added), quoting ABA Section of Judicial Administration, Committee Report: Internal Operating Procedures of Appellate Courts at 33 (1961); see generally *234Ruggero J. Aldisert, Opinion Writing §§ 9.4 and 9.5 at 135-39 (1990). In my view, Harris was not binding precedent since it was a one-judge decision on the “fine and forfeiture” issue (Chief Judge Everett gave his view, and Judge Cox concurred in the result without stating any reasoning). The court below could have disregarded Harris, not because the reasoning in it was dicta, but because the reasoning of only one judge in Harris cannot become binding precedent of our Court. A majority of our Court is needed to make binding precedent. In a two-judge court (the status of our Court at the time of Harris), one judge does not make a majority.
Therefore, I would answer the first certified question in the negative. On the second certified question, however, I join the majority in finding error.

 See United States v. Jones, 23 MJ 301, 302 (CMA 1987).