Ortiz v. United States
2018 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Ortiz v. United States?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) in relationship to Article III Courts. The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the USCAAF, 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 was centered on the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. The Court declared the Appointments Clause does not impose a prohibition on an officer of the United States from serving in two roles simultaneously. Rather, the clause only concerns itself with the method of appointment.
Ortiz v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued January 15, 2018 Decided June 22, 2018 | |
Full case name | Keanu D.W. Ortiz v. United States |
Citations | 585 U.S. ___ (more) |
Holding | |
1. The Appointments Clause does not impose rules about an officer of the United States serving in dual roles. Rather, the clause is concerned only with the method of appointment of the officer. 2. 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. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Gorsuch |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 |
The case is notable for the court's reliance on the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.[1][2]