U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IX— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL

10 U.S.C. § 867a

Art. 67a. Review by the Supreme Court

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari as provided in section 1259 of title 28.(b) The accused may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor and without filing the affidavit required by section 1915(a) of title 28.(Added Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XIII, § 1301(b), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1569; amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title IX, § 924(c)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2831; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIX, § 5332, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2935; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, § 533(a)(2)(A), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 261.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–31 struck out at end “The Supreme Court may not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant a petition for review.”

2016—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328 inserted “United States” before “Court of Appeals” in second sentence.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–337 substituted “Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” for “Court of Military Appeals” in two places.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2023 Amendment

Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, § 533(b), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 261, provided that:“(1)In general.—The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section and sections 1259 and 2101 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 22, 2023] and shall apply with respect to any action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in granting or refusing to grant a petition for review submitted to such Court for the first time on or after such effective date.“(2)Inapplicability to pending decisions.—With respect to a petition submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces before the effective date specified in paragraph (1) and on which the Court has not taken action as of such date, the provisions of the United States Code amended by subsection (a) shall apply as if such amendments had not been enacted. Any action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in granting or refusing to grant such a petition is final and conclusive.“(3)Finality of decisions before effective date.—Any action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in granting or refusing to grant a petition for review before the effective date specified in paragraph (1) is final and conclusive.“(4)Rules required.—The Supreme Court shall prescribe rules to carry out section 2101(g) of title 28, United States Code, as amended by subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section, by not later than the effective date specified in paragraph (1).”

Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 3× “Article 67a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867a (2006). After the Supreme Court has acted on that petition, the “judgment as to the legality of the proceedings is final,” ending direct judicial review.”
Ctr. for Constitutional Rights v. United States, 72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1259 and 10 U.S.C. § 867a). Congress did not intend for military judges to operate without review when applying the Rules for Courts-Martial or the Military Rules of Evidence.”
United States v. Weiss, 36 M.J. 224 (1992). · cites it 2× “Additionally, effective August 1, 1984, Congress provided in Article 67(h)(1), UCMJ, 10 USC § 867 (h)(1), now Article 67a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 867a (1989), that decisions of our Court are reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of certiorari, Military Justice…”
Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). “Congress augmented this system in 1983, for the first time in Amer- ican history providing for direct Supreme Court review of certain decisions of the highest military tribunal.”
Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). “Article 67a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867a (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (2000).”
United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 1994). “Finally, this appellant is entitled under Arti *296 ele 67a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 867a, to seek review by an Article III court — the Supreme Court.”
Alvin W. Dodson, Jr. v. Colonel Gordon N. Zelez, Commandant, 917 F.2d 1250 (10th Cir. 1990). “The military justice system affords military prisoners the opportunity for collateral, as well as direct review of their convictions by military courts. See Ct.”
Davis v. Advocate Health Ctr. Patient Care Express, 523 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2008). “§ 1916 (seamen may file suit without prepaying fees or costs); 10 U.S.C. § 867a (military personnel seeking review of courts-martial may petition the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari without prepayment of fees and costs).”
United States v. Diaz, 40 M.J. 335 (1994). “We could, of course, set aside the original action and return the record for a new action, preceded by an S JA recommendation that would correctly inform the convening authority and followed by appellate review under Articles 66, 67, and potentially 67a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 867a. See…”
Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “10 U.S.C. § 867a(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1259 . B.”
Lawrence v. McCarthy, 344 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2003). “10 U.S.C. § 867a. At some point, a final decision will be reached, and this decision will become binding precedent.”
United States v. Kelly, 45 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 1996). “”); rules for admissibility of prior punishment — RCM 1001(b)(2) & (3) (no limitation on admissibility of prior Article 15s or prior convictions); direct review by the Supreme Court — Article 67a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 867a; and potential review of summary courts-martial by the Courts…”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 867a(a) — 3 cases
Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). “Article 67a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867a (2006). After the Supreme Court has acted on that petition, the “judgment as to the legality of the proceedings is final,” ending direct judicial review.”
Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2009). “10 U.S.C. § 867a(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1259 . B.”
United States v. Adams (C.A.A.F. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.