Thursday, November 23, 2006

The CAAF oral argument migration

This evening I looked at the CAAF oral argument schedule on its web site and the December arguments were missing. Where before there had been eight oral arguments scheduled, there was now -- nothing. At first I thought that the tryptophan from the Thanksgiving turkey might be distorting my perceptions. But then what is almost certainly the real reason occurred to me: CAAF has shifted oral arguments from December to January anticipating that the full compliment of five judges will be seated and ready to hear oral arguments by 8 January. But the three oral arguments slated for next week are still on the schedule.

I am still perplexed, though, by what happened to the oral arguments in Harrow, No. 06-0474/AF, and Flores, No. 06-0675/MC. The other six December arguments successfully migrated to January. But Harrow and Flores are missing from the flock. Can anyone shed light on their fate?

CAAF also scheduled five new cases for argument in February, including a 13 February Project Outreach in New Orleans. Marine Maj Brian Keller and Capt Sridhar Kaza are the lucky winners in the Who Gets To Go To New Orleans on the Government's Dime derby.

Here is the updated breakdown of arguments by service:

Army: 10
Navy-Marine Corps: 12
Air Force: 15
Coast Guard: 0

The total number of oral arguments scheduled thus far is 27. Additional oral arguments will probably be added to the March calendar and hearings will almost certainly be held in April and May. But May traditionally ends oral argument season at CAAF. So it appears likely that the number of cases decided with opinions this term will come in far below last term's 76 or even the 2005 term's 64. (2004 = 57; 2003 = 57; 2002 = 75; 2001 = 73; 2000 = 110; 1999 = 123; 1998 = 129; 1997 = 113; 1996 = 118)

--Dwight Sullivan

1 comment:

Guert Gansevoort said...

The C.A.A.F. has held back two arguments for possible outreach arguments in New Orleans to accompany Cabrerra-Fratini which will be argued at Loyola in February. One of the two cases, Flores, is an interesting search and siezure issue that was cherry picked from a reserve counsel by ex-reserve branch coordinator Lieutenant Yim. C.A.A.F. apparently has no reservations about putting Yim, who once argued that C.A.A.F. was in fact a court of mandatory review, in front of law students to further the favorable perception of military justice by the public.