28 U.S.C. § 1259

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; certiorari

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari in the following cases:(1) Cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces under section 867(a)(1) of title 10.(2) Cases certified to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces by the Judge Advocate General under section 867(a)(2) of title 10.(3) Cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted or refused to grant a petition for review under section 867(a)(3) of title 10.(4) Cases, other than those described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted or refused to grant relief.(Added Pub. L. 98–209, § 10(a)(1), Dec. 6, 1983, 97 Stat. 1405; amended Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XIII, § 1304(b)(3), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1577; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title IX, § 924(d)(1)(C), (2)(A), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2832; Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title V, § 533(a)(1), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 261.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2023—Pars. (3), (4). Pub. L. 118–31 inserted “or refused to grant” after “granted”.

1994—Pub. L. 103–337 substituted “Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” for “Court of Military Appeals” in section catchline and wherever appearing in text.

1989—Pub. L. 101–189 substituted “section 867(a)(1)” for “section 867(b)(1)” in par. (1), “section 867(a)(2)” for “section 867(b)(2)” in par. (2), and “section 867(a)(3)” for “section 867(b)(3)” in par. (3).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2023 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 118–31(a) effective on the date that is one year after Dec. 22, 2023, and applicable 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 Dec. 22, 2023, with provisions relating to inapplicability to pending decisions and finality of decisions before effective date, see section 533(b) of Pub. L. 118–31, set out as a note under section 867a of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the eighth calendar month beginning after Dec. 6, 1983, see section 12(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–209, set out as an Effective Date of 1983 Amendment note under section 801 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ortiz v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2165 (2018). · cites it 6× “Fi- nally, 28 U. S. C. §1259 gives this Court jurisdiction to review the CAAF’s decisions by writ of certiorari.”

United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 3× “))2; see 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (2), enacted as part of the 1983 Act (providing for discretionary Supreme Court review of cases reviewed by a court of criminal appeals that the Judge Advocate General orders sent to this Court for review).”

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States, 792 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1259 ; Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.”

Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 867a (2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (2000). A judgment as to the legality of the proceedings becomes final upon the completion of direct review by the Court of Criminal Appeals and (1) expiration of the time for filing a petition for review with this Court without such a filing (and…”

Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987). · cites it 2× “[2] This Court subsequently granted certiorari pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1259 (3) (1982 ed., Supp. III) to review the decision of the Court of Military Appeals.”

United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (2009). “” Respondent maintains that we lack jurisdiction because the CAAF did not “‘grant relief’”; “all it did was remand” to the NMCCA.”

Loving v. United States, 68 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 867a(a) (2006), if certiorari is sought and granted as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (2006); and (5) consideration by the President under Article 71(a), UCMJ, 10 U.”

James R. Matias v. The United States, 923 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 867 (b)(3) (1988), and subsequently upheld the conviction and the sentence imposed.”

Mychelle Davis v. John O. Marsh, Sec'y of the Army, 876 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 1259 (Supp. IV 1986); Councilman, 420 U.”

Ctr. for Constitutional Rights v. United States, 72 M.J. 126 (C.A.A.F. 2013). “1393 , 1405-06 (1983) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 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.”

Gene A. Williams v. Sec'y of the Navy, 787 F.2d 552 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “, § 10(a)(1), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1259 . Congress did not intend thereby to reduce the independence of the military courts: “the Court of Military Appeals will remain the primary source of judicial authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Matias v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 635 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff continued to seek review of his conviction by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (3) (1982 & Supp. Y 1987), which was denied.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

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.