The Supreme Court's action probably elminates a thorny procedural question that arose when the case was remanded to Camp Pendleton and began to progress with its retrial despite the fact that a cert petition was simultaneously pending. This remand appears to have violated CAAF precedent:
As this Court discussed in a different context in United States v. Boudreaux, 35 M.J. 291 (CMA 1992), cert. denied, 122 L. Ed. 2d 743, 113 S. Ct. 1365 (1993), a criminal case in the court-martial system moves along "a time-line" or through "a 'tunnel of power'" where, depending upon the locus of the case, a particular authority has power over the substance of the case. See 35 M.J. at 293; and at 296 (Sullivan, C.J., concurring in the result). Thus, except for interlocutory maneuvers, for example, which may push the case ahead or pull it back, a court-martial case follows an orderly procession during which, at any given time, it rests within the power of a single authority.
United States v. Diaz, 40 M.J. 335, 343 (C.M.A. 1994).
CAAF nevertheless denied a petition for extraordinary relief to halt proceedings in the case until the Supremes ruled on the cert petition. Quintanilla v. Commandant, USDB, __ M.J. __, Misc. Nos. 06-8019/MC & 06-8021/MC (C.A.A.F. July 21, 2006).