dbo:abstract
|
- 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. The case is notable for the court's reliance on the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. (en)
|
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
dbo:wikiPageID
| |
dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 3598 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-01-15 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
dbp:argueyear
| |
dbp:case
|
- Ortiz v. United States, (en)
|
dbp:concurring
| |
dbp:cornell
| |
dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-22 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
dbp:decideyear
| |
dbp:dissent
| |
dbp:fullname
|
- Keanu D.W. Ortiz v. United States (en)
|
dbp: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 nor the appointments clause of the Constitution. (en)
|
dbp:joindissent
| |
dbp:joinmajority
|
- Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (en)
|
dbp:justia
| |
dbp:lawsapplied
| |
dbp:litigants
|
- Ortiz v. United States (en)
|
dbp:majority
| |
dbp:uspage
| |
dbp:usvol
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:comment
|
- 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. (en)
|
rdfs:label
|
- Ortiz v. United States (en)
|
owl:sameAs
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
foaf:name
|
- (en)
- Keanu D.W. Ortiz v. United States (en)
|
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |