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. § 950f

Review by United States Court of Military Commission Review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Establishment.—There is a court of record to be known as the “United States Court of Military Commission Review” (in this section referred to as the “Court”). The Court shall consist of one or more panels, each composed of not less than three judges on the Court. For the purpose of reviewing decisions of military commissions under this chapter, the Court may sit in panels or as a whole, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.(b)Judges.—(1) Judges on the Court shall be assigned or appointed in a manner consistent with the provisions of this subsection.(2) The Secretary of Defense may assign persons who are appellate military judges to be judges on the Court. Any judge so assigned shall be a commissioned officer of the armed forces, and shall meet the qualifications for military judges prescribed by section 948j(b) of this title.(3) The President may appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, additional judges to the United States Court of Military Commission Review.(4) No person may serve as a judge on the Court in any case in which that person acted as a military judge, counsel, or reviewing official.(5)(A) For purposes of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of title 18, the term “special Government employee” shall include a judge of the Court appointed under paragraph (3).(B) A person appointed as a judge of the Court under paragraph (3) shall be considered to be an officer or employee of the United States with respect to such person’s status as a judge, but only during periods in which such person is performing the duties of such a judge. Any provision of law that prohibits or limits the political or business activities of an employee of the United States shall only apply to such a judge during such periods.(6) (A) The term of an appellate military judge assigned or appointed to the Court under this subsection shall expire on the earlier of the date on which—(i) the judge leaves active duty; or(ii) the judge is reassigned to other duties in accordance with section 949b(b)(4) of this title.(B) The term of a civilian judge of the Court appointed under paragraph (3) shall expire on the date that is 10 years after the date on which the judge was appointed.(7) Judges of the Court may be removed from office by the President (in the case of a judge appointed under paragraph (3)) or the Secretary of Defense (in the case of an appellate military judge assigned under paragraph (2)) upon notice and hearing, for—(A) neglect of duty;(B) misconduct; or(C) mental or physical disability.(c)Cases To Be Reviewed.—The Court shall, in accordance with procedures prescribed under regulations of the Secretary, review the record in each case that is referred to the Court by the convening authority under section 950c of this title with respect to any matter properly raised by the accused.(d)Standard and Scope of Review.—In a case reviewed by the Court under this section, the Court may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. The Court may affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. In considering the record, the Court may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, recognizing that the military commission saw and heard the witnesses.(e)Rehearings.—If the Court sets aside the findings or sentence, the Court may, except where the setting aside is based on lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings, order a rehearing. If the Court sets aside the findings or sentence and does not order a rehearing, the Court shall order that the charges be dismissed.(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, § 1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2603; amended Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title X, § 1034(c), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1573; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, § 1082, Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1602; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, § 541(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1761; Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, § 567(a), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1905.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 950f, added Pub. L. 109–366, § 3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2621; amended Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title X, § 1063(a)(6), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 322, related to review by Court of Military Commission Review, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 118–159, § 567(a)(1), designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), redesignated former subpars. (A) and (B) as cls. (i) and (ii), respectively, of subpar. (A), and realigned margins; substituted “The term of an appellate military judge assigned or appointed to the Court under this subsection” for “The term of an appellate military judge assigned to the Court under paragraph (2) or appointed to the Court under paragraph (3)”; and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 118–159, § 567(a)(2), added par. (7).

2018—Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 115–232 added par. (6).

2017—Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 115–91 added par. (5).

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–81 substituted “judges on the Court” for “appellate military judges” in second sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2024 Amendment

Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title V, § 567(b), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1905, provided that:“(1)In general.—The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 23, 2024].“(2)Applicability to existing civilian judges.—The term of any civilian judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review who will have served as such a judge for a period of 10 or more years as of the effective date described in paragraph (1) shall expire on such effective date.”

Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title V, § 541(b), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1762, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to each judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review serving on that court on the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 13, 2018] and each judge assigned or appointed to that court on or after such date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a); Promulgation of Panel Assignments, USCMCR (July 1, 2014), http://www.”
Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). · cites it 2× “10 U. S. C. §950f(b)(2). To moot a possible constitutional 2 ORTIZ v.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “2001); 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). We turn to the merits of Bahlul’s structural Article III challenge to his conspiracy conviction.”
United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189 (C.A.A.F. 2017). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 950f(a) (2012). As amended in 2011, Pub.”
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “The “scope of the CMCR’s post-conviction review is a word-for-word copy” of the portion of the UCMJ that sets out the authority of each service’s Court of Criminal Appeals, the military body that reviews court-martial convictions.”
United States v. Al Bahlul, 820 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (M.C. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 826 (1976)); 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d) (2009); United States v.”
United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2016). · cites it 3× “Thus, three separate actions are required for the President to appoint an “additional judge” to the USCMCR under the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 950f: (1) the President nominates a person for the position and sends his name to the Senate for confirmation; (2) the Senate confirms the…”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “’ ” 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a). The Court reviews final decisions of military commissions.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 967 F.3d 858 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f (2006). To be sure, the CMCR’s review was limited to questions of law under the 2006 MCA, id.”
Omar Khadr v. United States, 67 F.4th 413 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “with respect to any matter properly raised by the accused,” 10 U.S.C. § 950f(c), and “affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court finds correct in law and fact,” id.”
Hamdan v. Gates, 565 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2008). “10 U.S.C. § 950f. After exhausting (or waiving) proceedings before the CMCR, the defendant has an appeal of right to the D.”
Khadr v. Obama, 724 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2010). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f. That court “may act only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the [military commission],” and “may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a) — 8 cases
United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189 (C.A.A.F. 2017). “10 U.S.C. § 950f(a) (2012). As amended in 2011, Pub.”
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a); Promulgation of Panel Assignments, USCMCR (July 1, 2014), http://www.”
United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “Thus, three separate actions are required for the President to appoint an “additional judge” to the USCMCR under the terms of 10 U.S.C. § 950f: (1) the President nominates a person for the position and sends his name to the Senate for confirmation; (2) the Senate confirms the…”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “’ ” 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a). The Court reviews final decisions of military commissions.”
Khadr v. United States, 62 F. Supp. 3d 1314 (M.C. 2014).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(2) — 4 cases
Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). “10 U. S. C. §950f(b)(2). To moot a possible constitutional 2 ORTIZ v.”
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a); Promulgation of Panel Assignments, USCMCR (July 1, 2014), http://www.”
Ortiz v. United States (2018).
Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir v. (D.C. Cir. 2015).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(3) — 1 case
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “’ ” 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a). The Court reviews final decisions of military commissions.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(5)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Mohammad, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1066 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 2019).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(c) — 4 cases
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 10 U.S.C. § 950f(a); Promulgation of Panel Assignments, USCMCR (July 1, 2014), http://www.”
Omar Khadr v. United States, 67 F.4th 413 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “with respect to any matter properly raised by the accused,” 10 U.S.C. § 950f(c), and “affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or such part or amount of the sentence, as the Court finds correct in law and fact,” id.”
Baker v. Spath (D.D.C. 2018).
Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir v. (D.C. Cir. 2015).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d) — 4 cases
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “2001); 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). We turn to the merits of Bahlul’s structural Article III challenge to his conspiracy conviction.”
United States v. Al Bahlul, 820 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (M.C. 2011). “2d 826 (1976)); 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d) (2009); United States v.”
Hicks v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (M.C. 2015).
Baker v. Spath (D.D.C. 2018).
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.