## Facts

- Major James Goldsmith, a U.S. Air Force officer, was convicted by general court-martial for willfully disobeying an order related to notifying sexual partners of his HIV status and taking steps to prevent transmission, along with other offenses under the UCMJ.
- He was sentenced to six years’ confinement and partial forfeiture of pay.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction; Goldsmith did not seek review in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and the court-martial judgment became final.
- Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to “drop from the rolls” an officer who had been sentenced by court-martial to more than six months’ confinement and had served at least six months.
- The Air Force notified Goldsmith it would pursue dropping him from the rolls under this authority.
- Goldsmith sought extraordinary relief in military appellate courts; during that litigation he raised constitutional objections (Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy) to the prospective “drop from the rolls” action.
- Invoking the All Writs Act, the CAAF enjoined the President and other officials from dropping Goldsmith from the rolls.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the CAAF had authority to issue that injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the CAAF may use the All Writs Act to enjoin an executive “drop from the rolls” action that is not part of a court-martial’s findings or sentence and is outside the CAAF’s statutory appellate jurisdiction.
2. Whether extraordinary relief is “necessary or appropriate” when alternative administrative and judicial avenues exist to challenge the executive personnel action, including on constitutional grounds.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held the CAAF lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction barring the “drop from the rolls” action.
- The All Writs Act did not authorize relief because the injunction was not “in aid of” the CAAF’s limited statutory jurisdiction over court-martial findings and sentences.
- Relief was also not “necessary or appropriate” given other available remedies (administrative review and potential Article III judicial review).
- The Court did not reach the merits of Goldsmith’s Ex Post Facto or Double Jeopardy claims.

## Legal Principles

- The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to issue writs only “in aid of” their existing jurisdiction; it does not expand a court’s statutorily conferred jurisdiction.
- The CAAF’s jurisdiction is strictly limited to reviewing specified court-martial cases, i.e., the record of court-martial findings and sentences within the UCMJ appellate scheme.
- An executive administrative personnel action, such as dropping an officer from the rolls under statutory authority, is not itself a court-martial finding or sentence and is not subject to CAAF supervision via extraordinary writs.
- Extraordinary writ relief must be “necessary or appropriate,” and is generally unavailable when adequate alternative avenues for relief exist.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the CAAF could not invoke the All Writs Act to enjoin an executive decision to drop an officer from the rolls because that action fell outside the CAAF’s narrow jurisdiction over court-martial findings and sentences and because other mechanisms existed for challenging the administrative action.


Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999)