National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • The Orders Project
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • News for You
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • The Orders Project
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • News for You
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

June 27th, 2026

6/27/2026

1 Comment

 
Thursday, June 25, 2026
Order Granting Petition for Review
 
No. 26-0179/NA. U.S. v. Brian J. Sumpter. CCA 202400329. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is granted on the following assigned issue:
 
Whether this Court should overturn its decision in United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F. 2009), considering the Supreme Court's decision in Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, 601 U.S. 480 (2024), and hold the sixty-day deadline to appeal a Court of Criminal Appeals' decision is not jurisdictional.
 
Appellant will file a brief on or before 15 July, 2026; Appellee will file an answer brief no later than 21 days after the filing of Appellant's brief; and Appellant may file a reply brief no later than 7 days after the filing of Appellee's answer brief.
 
The Court reserves judgment on whether it will grant, deny, or dismiss assigned issue II.
1 Comment
Rodriguez was egregiously wrong
6/28/2026 21:39:54

Rodriguez was egregiously wrong the day it was decided. The majority opinion flippantly disregards the natural meaning of "may" in Article 67(b) and replaces it with a ludicrous meaning (that the choice to appeal is the appellant's as though Congress could force appellants to appeal against their will, ignoring the waiver provisions of Article 61 and the language of Article 66 for automatic appeals).

That's not all. Harrow v. Dept. of Defense is not the first case since 2009 to address a similar issue of timeliness of appeal where the Supreme Court did not view the limitation as jurisdictional. Boechler, P.C. v. Comm'r, 596 U.S. 199 (2022) and Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006). The supreme court has noted, "the Government must clear a high bar to establish that a statute of limitations is jurisdictional. In recent years, we have repeatedly held that procedural rules, including time bars, cabin a court’s power only if Congress has 'clearly state[d]' as much. United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402, 409 (2015) (listing cases).

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Editor:
    Phil Cave
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal

    -2026 Ops
    ​
    Supplements

    ​(NB, these only stay on the site until oral argument is scheduled.)

    ACCA​
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP

    UCMJ

    Index and Legislative History: Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    July 2026
    June 2026
    May 2026
    April 2026
    March 2026
    February 2026
    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly