U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47A— MILITARY COMMISSIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS

10 U.S.C. § 950d

Interlocutory appeals by the United States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Interlocutory Appeal.—Except as provided in subsection (b), in a trial by military commission under this chapter, the United States may take an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Military Commission Review of any order or ruling of the military judge—(1) that terminates proceedings of the military commission with respect to a charge or specification;(2) that excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding;(3) that relates to a matter under subsection (c) or (d) of section 949d of this title; or(4) that, with respect to classified information—(A) authorizes the disclosure of such information;(B) imposes sanctions for nondisclosure of such information; or(C) refuses a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of such information.(b)Limitation.—The United States may not appeal under subsection (a) an order or ruling that is, or amounts to, a finding of not guilty by the military commission with respect to a charge or specification.(c)Scope of Appeal Right With Respect to Classified Information.—The United States has the right to appeal under paragraph (4) of subsection (a) whenever the military judge enters an order or ruling that would require the disclosure of classified information, without regard to whether the order or ruling appealed from was entered under this chapter, another provision of law, a rule, or otherwise. Any such appeal may embrace any preceding order, ruling, or reasoning constituting the basis of the order or ruling that would authorize such disclosure.(d)Timing and Action on Interlocutory Appeals Relating to Classified Information.—(1)Appeal to be expedited.—An appeal taken pursuant to paragraph (4) of subsection (a) shall be expedited by the United States Court of Military Commission Review.(2)Appeals before trial.—If such an appeal is taken before trial, the appeal shall be taken within 10 days after the order or ruling from which the appeal is made and the trial shall not commence until the appeal is decided.(3)Appeals during trial.—If such an appeal is taken during trial, the military judge shall adjourn the trial until the appeal is decided, and the court of appeals—(A) shall hear argument on such appeal within 4 days of the adjournment of the trial (excluding weekends and holidays);(B) may dispense with written briefs other than the supporting materials previously submitted to the military judge;(C) shall render its decision within four days of argument on appeal (excluding weekends and holidays); and(D) may dispense with the issuance of a written opinion in rendering its decision.(e)Notice and Timing of Other Appeals.—The United States shall take an appeal of an order or ruling under subsection (a), other than an appeal under paragraph (4) of that subsection, by filing a notice of appeal with the military judge within 5 days after the date of the order or ruling.(f)Method of Appeal.—An appeal under this section shall be forwarded, by means specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, directly to the United States Court of Military Commission Review.(g)Appeals Court To Act Only With Respect to Matter of Law.—In ruling on an appeal under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a), the appeals court may act only with respect to matters of law.(h)Subsequent Appeal Rights of Accused Not Affected.—An appeal under paragraph (4) of subsection (a), and a decision on such appeal, shall not affect the right of the accused, in a subsequent appeal from a judgment of conviction, to claim as error reversal by the military judge on remand of a ruling appealed from during trial.(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2601.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 950d, added Pub. L. 109–366, § 3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2620, related to appeal by the United States, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “See 10 U.S.C. §§ 950d, 950f. It reviews questions of both fact and law.”
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(1) (authorizing Government to take interlocutory appeal when military judge “terminates proceedings .”
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.C. 2007). · cites it 4× “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d ROLPH, Deputy Chief Judge: In this appeal by the Government (hereinafter Appellant) we are called upon to interpret for the first time the jurisdictional provisions contained in the…”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “Statement of the Case On August 18, 2014, appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal under 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l) of the decision to dismiss the charges.”
United States v. Khadr, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (M.C. 2008). · cites it 7× “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d FRANCIS, Deputy Chief Judge: This case is before us on an interlocutory appeal by the Government [hereinafter Appellant], pursuant to 10 U.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (M.C. 2014). · cites it 6× “Because the two August 15, 2014 Motions for Reconsideration were not admitted into evidence at trial level, discussed in the military judge’s, findings, or admitted to our court as an appendix, we are limited to addressing the only Motion for Reconsideration provided to our…”
In re: Mustafa Al Hawsawi, 955 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “See 10 U.S.C. §§ 950d, 950f. 6 We have previously held that “mandamus provides ‘an appropriate vehicle for seeking recusal of a judicial officer during the pendency of a case.”
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (M.C. 2007). · cites it 4× “The same holds true for the statutory right of appeal afforded the United States under 10 U.S.C. § 950d. Appellee has made no showing, or even assertion, of substantial prejudice from the operation of any of this Court’s Rules of Practice, nor does the record support a finding…”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (M.C. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(2). The procedural history of this case is described in United States v.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2018). · cites it 10× “Pendent Jurisdiction Having decided we have jurisdiction to decide the abeyance issue, we must also determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide the following five issues: (1) Is good cause required before the SDC may be excused from representing Al-Nashiri; (2) Was there…”
In re: United States of Am. (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d. So at best, bin ‘Atash’s proposed path for review is far too tenuous to be an adequate alternative for the government.”
In re: United States of Am. (D.C. Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d. So at best, bin ‘Atash’s proposed path for review is far too tenuous to be an adequate alternative for the government.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2018). “Pendent Jurisdiction Having decided we have jurisdiction to decide the abeyance issue, we must also determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide the following five issues: (1) Is good cause required before the SDC may be excused from representing Al-Nashiri; (2) Was there…”
In re: United States of Am. (D.C. Cir. 2025). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d. So at best, bin ‘Atash’s proposed path for review is far too tenuous to be an adequate alternative for the government.”
In re: United States of Am. (D.C. Cir. 2025). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d. So at best, bin ‘Atash’s proposed path for review is far too tenuous to be an adequate alternative for the government.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(1) — 5 cases
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(1) (authorizing Government to take interlocutory appeal when military judge “terminates proceedings .”
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. §§ 950d, 950f. It reviews questions of both fact and law.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2018). “Pendent Jurisdiction Having decided we have jurisdiction to decide the abeyance issue, we must also determine whether we have jurisdiction to decide the following five issues: (1) Is good cause required before the SDC may be excused from representing Al-Nashiri; (2) Was there…”
United States v. Mohammad, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (M.C. 2017).
Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir v. (D.C. Cir. 2015).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.C. 2007). “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d ROLPH, Deputy Chief Judge: In this appeal by the Government (hereinafter Appellant) we are called upon to interpret for the first time the jurisdictional provisions contained in the…”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 222 F. Supp. 3d 1093 (M.C. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(2). The procedural history of this case is described in United States v.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l) — 3 cases
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. §§ 950d, 950f. It reviews questions of both fact and law.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.C. 2016). “Statement of the Case On August 18, 2014, appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal under 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l) of the decision to dismiss the charges.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (M.C. 2014). “Because the two August 15, 2014 Motions for Reconsideration were not admitted into evidence at trial level, discussed in the military judge’s, findings, or admitted to our court as an appendix, we are limited to addressing the only Motion for Reconsideration provided to our…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.C. 2007). “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d ROLPH, Deputy Chief Judge: In this appeal by the Government (hereinafter Appellant) we are called upon to interpret for the first time the jurisdictional provisions contained in the…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Khadr, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (M.C. 2008). “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d FRANCIS, Deputy Chief Judge: This case is before us on an interlocutory appeal by the Government [hereinafter Appellant], pursuant to 10 U.”
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (M.C. 2007). “The same holds true for the statutory right of appeal afforded the United States under 10 U.S.C. § 950d. Appellee has made no showing, or even assertion, of substantial prejudice from the operation of any of this Court’s Rules of Practice, nor does the record support a finding…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (M.C. 2007). “OPINION OF THE COURT AND ACTION ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. § 950d ROLPH, Deputy Chief Judge: In this appeal by the Government (hereinafter Appellant) we are called upon to interpret for the first time the jurisdictional provisions contained in the…”
United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (M.C. 2007). “The same holds true for the statutory right of appeal afforded the United States under 10 U.S.C. § 950d. Appellee has made no showing, or even assertion, of substantial prejudice from the operation of any of this Court’s Rules of Practice, nor does the record support a finding…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(e) — 2 cases
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.C. 2016). “Statement of the Case On August 18, 2014, appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal under 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l) of the decision to dismiss the charges.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (M.C. 2014). “Because the two August 15, 2014 Motions for Reconsideration were not admitted into evidence at trial level, discussed in the military judge’s, findings, or admitted to our court as an appendix, we are limited to addressing the only Motion for Reconsideration provided to our…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950d(g) — 4 cases
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(1) (authorizing Government to take interlocutory appeal when military judge “terminates proceedings .”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.C. 2016). “Statement of the Case On August 18, 2014, appellant filed a notice of interlocutory appeal under 10 U.S.C. § 950d(a)(l) of the decision to dismiss the charges.”
United States v. Al-Nashiri, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (M.C. 2014). “Because the two August 15, 2014 Motions for Reconsideration were not admitted into evidence at trial level, discussed in the military judge’s, findings, or admitted to our court as an appendix, we are limited to addressing the only Motion for Reconsideration provided to our…”
Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir v. (D.C. Cir. 2015).
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.