This week at SCOTUS: The Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to the cert. petition in Sterling. The brief is available here. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking three cases:

This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral arguments at CAAF are on April 25, 2017.

This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Anderson, No. 2016-17, on Tuesday, April 18, 2017, at 2 p.m. According to the CCA’s website, “this argument will be closed and not open for public viewing.” The case number indicates that this is either an interlocutory appeal or a petition for extraordinary relief (possibly a petition by an alleged victim under Article 6b).

This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA’s oral argument schedule shows no scheduled oral arguments.

This week at the NMCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA is on May 2, 2017.

7 Responses to “This Week in Military Justice – April 16, 2017”

  1. Isaac Kennen says:

    Dalmazzi was SCOTUSblog’s petition of the day for April 12, 2017.

  2. stewie says:

    Does that mean it’s in the running for Petition of the Month?

  3. Isaac Kennen says:

    SCOTUSblog Petition of the Day explained:

    The “Petition of the day” posts feature petitions that are likely to appear on our “Petitions to watch” list when they are scheduled for consideration by the Justices. “Petitions of the day” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that have a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case. We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.

  4. stewie says:

    T’was a joke.

  5. Isaac Kennen says:

    I figured.  But then I myself wondered just what it meant to be a petition of the day.  Thought I’d share what I found.

  6. k fischer says:

    ‘re:  Anderson.
    This is US v MAJ. Clarence.  Sex assault allegation in a divorce where custody is at issue and allegation arose after custody got contentious. His mom is fighting for him.