## Facts

- Keanu D. W. Ortiz, an Airman First Class in the U.S. Air Force, was convicted by general court-martial of possessing and distributing child pornography and sentenced to imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) affirmed the conviction and sentence in a decision joined by Colonel Martin T. Mitchell.
- While serving on the AFCCA panel, Mitchell also served on the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR).
- Mitchell’s CMCR service began with an assignment by the Secretary of Defense under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b)(2), followed by a separate presidential appointment with Senate confirmation.
- Ortiz challenged the AFCCA decision, arguing Mitchell’s simultaneous service on the AFCCA and CMCR violated (a) 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A) (restricting active-duty officers from holding certain “civil office[s]”) and (b) the Appointments Clause.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rejected Ortiz’s statutory and constitutional objections.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide its jurisdiction to review CAAF decisions and the merits of the dual-officeholding challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review decisions of the CAAF, an Article I court.
2. Whether a military judge’s simultaneous service on the AFCCA and the CMCR violates the Appointments Clause.
3. Whether 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A) disqualified Judge Mitchell from AFCCA service because of his CMCR position.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1259 to review CAAF decisions, notwithstanding CAAF’s Article I status.
- The Court held the Appointments Clause does not bar dual service; it regulates methods of appointment, and Mitchell was properly appointed to each position.
- The Court held that, even assuming a CMCR judgeship is a covered “civil office” under § 973(b)(2)(A), 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b) “otherwise authorize[s]” active-duty officers to serve on the CMCR, so § 973(b) did not disqualify Mitchell from AFCCA service.
- The Court affirmed the judgment of the CAAF (7–2).

## Legal Principles

- Congress may confer Supreme Court appellate review over decisions of certain non-Article III tribunals; 28 U.S.C. § 1259 validly authorizes review of CAAF decisions.
- The Appointments Clause primarily governs the manner of appointing principal and inferior officers and does not, by itself, impose a general prohibition on holding two federal offices simultaneously.
- Absent a specific constitutional incompatibility rule or a statutory bar, properly appointed officers may perform duties in more than one office.
- Under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A), a general restriction on active-duty officers holding certain “civil office[s]” yields where another statute “otherwise authorize[s]” that service; 10 U.S.C. § 950f(b) provides such authorization for CMCR assignments.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over CAAF decisions and upheld a military appellate judge’s simultaneous service on the AFCCA and CMCR against both Appointments Clause and statutory dual-officeholding challenges, leaving Ortiz’s conviction and sentence intact.


Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. 427 (2018)