| 词条 | Draft:Ortiz v. United States |
| 释义 |
|Litigants= Ortiz v. United States |ArgueDate= January 15 |ArgueYear= 2018 |DecideDate= June 22 |DecideYear= 2018 |FullName= Keanu D.W. Ortiz v. United States |USVol=585 |USPage=___ |ParallelCitations= |Docket= |OralArgument= |OralReargument= |OpinionAnnouncement= |Prior= |Subsequent= |Holding=Military judge’s simultaneous service on an Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review violated neither 10 U. S. C. §973(b)(2)(A) nor the appointments clause of the Constitution. |Majority= Kagan |JoinMajority= Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |Concurring=Thomas |Dissent=Alito |JoinDissent=Gorsuch |LawsApplied= }} Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in relationship to Article III Courts. The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, even though that court was created by Congress via Article I of the United States Constitution and is not an Article III court. The case is notable for the court's reliance on Marbury v. Madison.[1][2] References1. ^https://www.lawfareblog.com/reflections-ortiz-and-structural-separation-powers 2. ^https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/14/supreme-court-jurisdiction-over-the-court-of-appeals-for-the-armed-forces/?utm_term=.285e30406b9f External links[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1423_new_dd9l.pdf Opinion] |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。