Potential problems pish-posh: a rebuttal to the Kabul Klipper

The Kabul Klipper writes below about concerns that yesterday's SCOTUS opinion in United States v. Denedo will clip military appellate courts' wings by limiting their authority to issue pre-appellate extraordinary relief. I disagree with my learned colleague. As the Kabul Klipper himself acknowledges in his post, Denedo looks backwards for jurisdiction because coram nobis is a backward-looking writ. It don't think the opinion speaks to authority to issue writs of mandamus or prohibition; nor do I think military appellate courts will interpret the opinion aas precluding them from doing so.

An appellate court's authority to issue such a writ is typically thought of as existing if a case potentially falls within the appellate court's appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-04 (1966). Here's how the D.C. Circuit put it in a 2004 opinion: "Once there has been a proceeding of some kind instituted before an agency or court that might lead to an appeal, it makes sense to speak of the matter as being 'within [our] appellate jurisdiction' -- however prospective or potential that jurisdiction might be." In re Tennant, 359 F.3d 523, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The author of those words? Then-Judge Roberts.