Here (subscription req’d) is a link to Marcia Coyle’s piece in the National Law Journal Supreme Court Brief discussing the Akbar cert. petition and amicus brief from NIMJ, featuring quotes from NIMJ’s Prof. Stephen Vladeck.  From the portion visible outside the firewall:

In the past eight years, the Obama administration has been no stranger to charges it has violated separation of powers or exceeded its statutory authority. But a new charge comes from an unusual source—the military justice system—in a U.S. Supreme Court petition that has the potential to dismantle the military’s capital punishment scheme.

Our prior coverage of the cert. petition is here and here.  H/t JB/SV

5 Responses to “National Law Journal Coverage of the Akbar Cert. petition”

  1. Zeke Kennen says:

    I thought this article was interesting, too.  And it also has the benefit of being available to the masses because it does not require a subscription.
     
    Are Military Death Sentences Unconstitutional? SCOTUS May Decide. – C. Sullivan, Findlaw Blogs (May 10, 2016).

  2. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    I love that so many people are buying into this argument dreamed up in the old NCIS building on the Wash. Navy Yard just before it was flooded by Hurricane Isabel.  To all my Code 45 officemates/naysayers, and in the immortal words of Kirk Cousins, “You like that!?!”

  3. Vulture says:

    That 1/3 of the military prisoners on death row and all of the death sentences since 9/11 being from the same ethnicity as the primary opponent should be a part of these arguments.

  4. Admiral Ripley says:

    You’re not going to believe this, but there have also been allegations that obama’s birth certificate pdf is a forgery and obama’s selective service registration card is a blatant fraud. Now if these allegations proved to be true, they might be impeachable offenses!!!
     
    Believe it or don’t!

  5. Vulture says:

    Maybe so.  But how can the President write the aggravating circumstances and then turn around and approve the execution now? http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5040_6537.pdf