Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Ortiz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSupreme Court jurisdictionMilitary justiceAppointments ClauseStatutory interpretationArticle IIIappellate jurisdictionCAAF

Facts

Ortiz, an Air Force airman, was convicted by court-martial of possessing and distributing child pornography and received two years' imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge. On appeal, a panel of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals that included Colonel Martin Mitchell affirmed. Mitchell had been assigned by the Secretary of Defense to serve on the Court of Military Commission Review under 10 U.S.C. §950f(b)(2), and later was also appointed to that court by the President with Senate confirmation under §950f(b)(3). Ortiz argued that Mitchell's presidential appointment to the CMCR made his continued service on the CCA unlawful under 10 U.S.C. §973(b)(2)(A) and the Appointments Clause.

Issue

Does the Supreme Court have Article III appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces? If so, did Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on the Air Force CCA and the CMCR violate 10 U.S.C. §973(b)(2)(A) or the Appointments Clause so as to entitle Ortiz to a new appeal?

Rule

The Supreme Court may exercise Article III appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CAAF when reviewing judicial proceedings in the constitutionally grounded and historically established court-martial system. Under 10 U.S.C. §973(b)(2)(A), an active-duty officer may serve in an otherwise covered civil office when such service is otherwise authorized by law, and authorization under §950f(b)(2) remains sufficient even after a later presidential appointment under §950f(b)(3). The Appointments Clause governs methods of appointment and does not, absent more, prohibit simultaneous service in two offices on a theory of incongruity or incompatibility.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Sergeant Lena Park was convicted by court-martial in San Diego and lost in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and then in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. She petitions the Supreme Court, and the government argues that Article III bars review because the CAAF is located in the Executive Branch and is not an Article III court.

How should the Supreme Court rule on its jurisdiction?

Explanation. The Court's majority held that Article III permits Supreme Court appellate review of CAAF decisions because the Court is reviewing proceedings already instituted and decided within the longstanding court-martial system, which has sufficient judicial character, constitutional pedigree, and historical foundation. The fact that the CAAF is not an Article III court and sits in the Executive Branch does not itself defeat appellate jurisdiction. (Derived from Ortiz v. United States (n.d.).)