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. § 950g

Review by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; writ of certiorari to Supreme Court

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment rendered by a military commission (as approved by the convening authority and, where applicable, as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the United States Court of Military Commission Review) under this chapter.(b)Exhaustion of Other Appeals.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may not review a final judgment described in subsection (a) until all other appeals under this chapter have been waived or exhausted.(c)Time for Seeking Review.—A petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit must be filed in the Court of Appeals—(1) not later than 20 days after the date on which written notice of the final decision of the United States Court of Military Commission Review is served on the parties; or(2) if the accused submits, in the form prescribed by section 950c of this title, a written notice waiving the right of the accused to review by the United States Court of Military Commission Review, not later than 20 days after the date on which such notice is submitted.(d)Scope and Nature of Review.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may act under this section only with respect to the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority and as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by the United States Court of Military Commission Review, and shall take action only with respect to matters of law, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.(e)Review by Supreme Court.—The Supreme Court may review by writ of certiorari pursuant to section 1254 of title 28 the final judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under this section.(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(d), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1573.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 950g, added Pub. L. 109–366, § 3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2622, related to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.

Amendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–81, § 1034(d)(1), inserted “as affirmed or set aside as incorrect in law by” after “where applicable,”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–81, § 1034(d)(2)(A), substituted “in the Court of Appeals—” for “by the accused in the Court of Appeals not later than 20 days after the date on which—” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 112–81, § 1034(d)(2)(B), inserted “not later than 20 days after the date on which” before “written notice” and substituted “on the parties” for “on the accused or on defense counsel”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 112–81, § 1034(d)(2)(C), inserted “if” before “the accused submits” and inserted before period at end “, not later than 20 days after the date on which such notice is submitted”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · 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 7× “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). Accordingly, we can issue a writ of mandamus now to protect the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction later.”
Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a)(l). The preliminary pretrial decision that Khadr contests is not such a “final judgment.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “”), whereas Bahlul is appealing the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review, and the statute governing such appeals, see 10 U.S.C. § 950g, contains none of the limitations the dissent labors to establish.”
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 1651 (a), and the 2009 MCA, 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). See Al-Nashiri, 791 F.”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “The Court reviews final decisions of military commissions.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 967 F.3d 858 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Al Bahlul appealed to this court, and we have exclusive jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 950g. Al Bahlul raises six discrete arguments on appeal.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “at 25 ; 10 U.S.C. § 950g(d). The court properly considers a challenge to the jurisdiction of a military 3 commission at any time it is raised.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 77 F.4th 918 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “We have jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). II. ANALYSIS Bahlul raises three familiar challenges: (1) that the military commission lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because the convening authority was unconstitutionally appointed; (2) that the CMCR erred by not remanding…”
Lebron Ex Rel. Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 670 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2012). “With respect to detainees like Padilla, Congress has provided for limited judicial review of military commission decisions, but only by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, and only after the full process in military courts has run its course.”
In re: Mary E. Spears & Rosa A. Eliades, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “18-1315 (Nov. 21, 2018). We begin with Al-Nashiri's petition.”
Salim Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 10 U.S.C. § 950g. II We must first address the issue of mootness – that is, whether this appeal is moot because Hamdan has been released from U.”
Al-Baluchi v. Esper, 392 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “In addition, respondents urge the Court to adopt a broad reading of 10 U.S.C. § 950g, which gives the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of final military commissions judgments - thus, they say, effectively reserving for the D.”
Show all 39 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a) — 23 cases
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). Accordingly, we can issue a writ of mandamus now to protect the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction later.”
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “§ 1651 (a), and the 2009 MCA, 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). See Al-Nashiri, 791 F.”
In re: Mary E. Spears & Rosa A. Eliades, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “18-1315 (Nov. 21, 2018). We begin with Al-Nashiri's petition.”
In re: Omar Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “The Court reviews final decisions of military commissions.”
In re: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, 866 F.3d 473 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a)(l) — 1 case
Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a)(l). The preliminary pretrial decision that Khadr contests is not such a “final judgment.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a)(l). The preliminary pretrial decision that Khadr contests is not such a “final judgment.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 950g(b) — 1 case
Omar Khadr v. United States, 67 F.4th 413 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
— 10 U.S.C. § 950g(d) — 11 cases
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “”), whereas Bahlul is appealing the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review, and the statute governing such appeals, see 10 U.S.C. § 950g, contains none of the limitations the dissent labors to establish.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “at 25 ; 10 U.S.C. § 950g(d). The court properly considers a challenge to the jurisdiction of a military 3 commission at any time it is raised.”
In Re: Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Al-Nashir, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “§ 1651 (a), and the 2009 MCA, 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). See Al-Nashiri, 791 F.”
In re Al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). Accordingly, we can issue a writ of mandamus now to protect the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction later.”
Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 77 F.4th 918 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “We have jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a). II. ANALYSIS Bahlul raises three familiar challenges: (1) that the military commission lacked jurisdiction to hear his case because the convening authority was unconstitutionally appointed; (2) that the CMCR erred by not remanding…”
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.