Dalmazzi v. United States

Docket Number: 16-961

Manner of Jurisdiction: Writ of certiorari

Petitioner: Nicole A. Dalmazzi

Respondent: United States of America

Dates

Granted: September 28, 2017

Argued: January 16, 2018

Decided: June 22, 2018

Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Advocates

Stephen I. Vladeck, for petitioners

Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, for respondent

Aditya Bamzai, as amicus curiae, in support of neither party

Facts of the Case

Since shortly after the Civil War, federal law has required express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a "civil office,” including positions that require "an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii). After President Obama nominated and the Senate confirmed Colonel Martin T. Mitchell as a judge of the Article I US Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), Judge Mitchell continued to serve on the US Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). A judge convicted Nicole Dalmazzi of wrongfully using ecstasy, a Schedule I controlled substance and sentenced her to dismissal and confinement for one month. The AFCCA affirmed the findings and sentence. Dalmazzi moved the CCA to vacate its judgment because of the participation of Judge Mitchell on the panel. Before the CCA ruled on her motion, Dalmazzi filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), so the CCA dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The CAAF rejected as moot Dalmazzi’s challenge to Judge Mitchell's continued service on the AFCCA, because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the AFCCA decided her case on the merits. Both of the other consolidated cases involve similar facts, where Judge Mitchell was on the CCA panel that affirmed the convictions of the petitioners.

Question

1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review two of the consolidated cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3)?
2. Does Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s simultaneous service on the US Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) and the US Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) violate the Appointments Clause?
3. Does Judge Mitchell’s service on the CMCR disqualify him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA?
4. Did the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces err in holding Petitioner’s claims moot?

Conclusion

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in this case and in the consolidated case Cox v. United States (16-1017). The Court reached the merits and issued a decision in the third consolidated case only, Ortiz v. United States (16-1423).