Counsel for Alaa Mohammad Ali, the civilian accompanying the U.S. military forces who was court-martialed in Iraq, has asked Chief Justice Roberts to extend the deadline for filing a cert petition until 31 December 2012.  And who are his counsel?  His counsel of record is our very own Michael J. Navarre, joined by John O’Connor and LTC Peter Kageleiry, Jr. and COL Patricia A. Ham of Army DAD.

4 Responses to “Ali’s counsel ask for more time to file a cert petition”

  1. Bridget Wilson says:

    Ali got the A team for defense.

  2. ConLaw says:

    Good luck. The Supreme Court doesn’t care that the majority rationale is wrong. They’re not likely to care about the result either if there is no real chance of repetition.

  3. Zachary Spilman says:

    The Government should fear certiorari of this case, not because the conviction could be reversed, but because of how it could be upheld.

    As I discussed in my opinion analysis, a key consideration in Judge Erdmann’s majority opinion in Ali was the fact that MEJA doesn’t apply to citizens of the host country, creating a situation where there was no Article III alternative to a court-martial in this case. This consideration was echoed in the concurring opinions of both Chief Judge Baker and Senior Judge Effron, making the court unanimous on the importance of the lack of an Article III alternative. SCOTUS could affirm CAAF on this point alone (ignoring, for a moment, the military-specific nature of the Article 134 conviction; Ali was also convicted of violations of Articles 107 and 121).

    Now turn the board around and consider a case where there is an Article III alternative to a court-martial for an other than military-specific offense (like a typical CONUS sexual assault prosecution). A Supreme Court majority that is willing to affirm trial by court-martial specifically because of the lack of an Article III alternative might also entertain the opposite argument: that the availability of an Article III alternative precludes trial by court-martial.

  4. Dew_Process says:

    The Court – for those of us who practice military law – should have also granted in Fry, but chose not to even though there was a bona fide and demonstrable federal statutory conflict issue.

    Counsel here need to address the issues in the Government’s Response in Fry, which is a fairly standard SG response to CAAF petitions.  See SCOTUS Rule 10(c).