Cases by Issue - Draftee or Person Subject to Induction

Edmond v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-262

Petitioner

Edmond

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

520 U.S. 651 (1997)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1997

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1997

Advocates

Alan B. Morrison (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Malcolm L. Stewart (Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, formerly the Coast Guard Court of Military Review, hears appeals from the decisions of courts martial, and its decisions are subject to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals' judges may be officers or civilians. During the time in dispute, two civilian members sat on the court. The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation originally assigned both civilian judges to the court. Afterwards the Secretary of Transportation issued a memorandum adopting the General Counsel's assignments as appointments of his own. Jon E. Edmond and others were convicted while one or both civilian judges participated on the court. Subsequently, their convictions were upheld on appeal. Edmond and others argued that the civilian judges' appointments were invalid due to the Appointments Clause, which holds "principle officers" must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Question

Has Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to appoint civilian members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals? If so, is this authorization constitutional under the Appointments Clause of Article II?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 323

Yes and yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the judicial appointments were valid. The Court unanimously found that Congress has authorized the Secretary to appoint civilian members of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the Court also reasoned that the Secretary's 1993 appointments of the two civilian judges in question were valid under the Appointments Clause, since such judges were inferior officers within the clause's meaning, by reason of the supervision of the judges' work by the General Counsel and by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Justice Scalia noted that the Appointments Clause gives the President the exclusive power to select principal officers by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, but authorizes Congress to "vest the Appointment of...inferior Officers...in the Heads of Departments." Justice David H. Souter filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Toussie v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:12 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

441

Petitioner

Toussie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

397 U.S. 112 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1970

Decided

Monday, March 2, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Toussie, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Gutknecht v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gutknecht

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 295 (1970)

Argued

Thursday, November 20, 1969

Decided

Monday, January 19, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Gutknecht, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Breen v. Selective Service Board

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:03 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Breen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service Board

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 460 (1970)

Argued

Wednesday, November 19, 1969

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Breen, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Mckart v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:49 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

403

Petitioner

Mckart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 185 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mckart, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Duvernay v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:41:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

814

Petitioner

Duvernay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 309 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:58 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Oestereich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Selective Service Bd.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 233 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Oestereich, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None