This week at SCOTUS: I’ve overlooked an interesting development at the Supreme Court; the Solicitor General has now twice asked for an extension of time to file a cert petition in United States v. Hutchins, No. 12-0408/MC, (CAAFlog case page) (SCOTUS docket page). I’m going to add Hutchins to the list of tracked cases for now.

I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m now tracking three military justice cases and the petition for a writ of mandamus in the Partington case:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 16, 2013.

This week at the ACCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Army CCA is on December 6, 2013.

This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on December 12, 2013.

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows one scheduled oral argument at the Coast Guard CCA, on January 9, 2014.

This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s website shows an oral argument date for Tuesday, November 26, 2013, but no case information is available. I’ve sent an email to the clerk asking for confirmation and will post an update if the court will hear argument on Tuesday.

5 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – November 24, 2013”

  1. Michael Lowrey says:

    Per AFCCA’s website, oral argument is also on scheduled on Monday, November 25 in United States v. Wilson before a special panel.

  2. Zachary D Spilman says:

    I missed that. Thanks!

  3. Christian Deichert says:

    More of a SAUSA case than an MJ case, but on 4 December, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Apel.  Apel was barred from Vandenberg AFB, then convicted on three counts of trespass under  18  U.S.C. 1382.  9th Circuit reversed (676 F.3d 1202 (2012)), holding that, under United States v. Parker, 651 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. lacked jurisdiction since the highway right-of-way easement had been granted to California, which then relinquished it to Santa Barbara County.  SCOTUSblog page here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-apel/ We have a few highway easements running through or abutting Fort Sill, which we normally exclude from our bar letters (save for a warning that the recipient may travel the highways but not stop).  It’ll be interesting to see whether or not the directive for barred individuals to move out smartly on their highway travels has any teeth in federal court.

  4. Christian Deichert says:

    Some more background on Apel from the ACLU: “The defendant in this case was barred from re-entering Vandenberg Air Force Base by the base commander. Subsequent to receiving the bar order, he participated in peaceful protests outside the front gate of the base in a designated protest zone located adjacent to a public highway that is part of an easement granted by the military. He was then arrested and convicted for violating his bar order. Apel argues that the statute relied on by the government was never intended to reach his conduct and that his conviction cannot be sustained in any event under the First Amendment. The ACLU is acting as co-counsel for Apel in the Supreme Court.”

  5. Michael Lowrey says:

    The case (I didn’t catch the name) that NMCCA heard oral argument on yesterday is all about the Heritage Brief-related UCI.