This week at SCOTUS: The Court granted the Solicitor General’s petitions for certiorari in Briggs and Collins (noted here), and consolidated the cases under Briggs. The Court also granted an additional extension of time to file a response to the petition in Richards. Finally, McDonald was distributed for conference on Dec. 6.
I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking five cases:
- United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 (consolidated) (cert granted on Nov. 15)
- Richards v. Donovan, et al., No. 19-55 (pet. filed Jun. 8; resp. req. Aug. 14, due Jan. 21)
- Hutchins v. United States, No. 19-489 (cert. pet. filed on Oct. 11; resp. waived Oct. 30; pend conf. on Nov. 15)
- Voorhees v. United States, No. 19A441 (ext. of time to file cert. pet. granted to Dec. 23)
- McDonald v. United States, No. 19-557 (pet filed Oct. 28; resp. waived Nov. 1; pend. conf. on Dec. 6).
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on December 3, 2019.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, November 21, 2019, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. McDonlad, No. 20180387
Issue: Whether the offense of communicating indecent language to a child under Article 134, UCMJ, has been preempted by Article 120b, UCMJ.
This week at the AFCCA: The Air Force CCA’s website shows no scheduled oral arguments.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, November 21, 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Navy-Marine Corps CCA courtroom:
United States v. Harpole (CAAFlog case page)
Issue: Whether the DuBay Judge’s findings, which support the conclusion that trial defense counsel were not ineffective in failing to file a suppression motion on the basis of Article 31(b) where the victim advocate suspected SN Harpole of sexual assault and did not provide a rights advisement before questioning him, are clearly erroneous
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA, sitting en banc, will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Wednesday, November 20, 2019, at 9 a.m.:
United States v. Begani, No. 201800082
A. Does Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice violate Appellant’s right to Equal Protection by subjecting him to court-martial as a member of the Fleet Reserve, if retired members of a reserve component are not subject to court-martial, except when receiving hospitalization from an armed force?
B. Are members of the Fleet Reserve “similarly situated” for Equal Protection purposes with retired members of a regular component and retired members of a reserve component?
C. What is the appropriate standard of review for this Court to apply to Article 2 in deciding an Equal Protection challenge?
• NMCCA opinion (withdrawn)
• Blog post: The NMCCA torpedoes Article 2
• Blog post: The fundamental flaw in the NMCCA’s decision in Begani
• Blog post: NMCCA withdraws opinion, grants reconsideration