Ortiz v. United States [SCOTUSbrief]

Can the Supreme Court review the holdings of non-Article III tribunals? Aditya Bamzai of the University of Virginia School of Law considers the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Ortiz v. United States.

#law #scotus #supremecourt #Marbury #separationofpowers #military #FedSocStudios

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Learn more about Aditya Bamzai:

Follow Aditya Bamzai on Twitter @adityabamzai

*******
Related Links & Differing Views:

Justia: “Ortiz v. United States,

Supreme Court of the United States: “ORTIZ v. UNITED STATES (2018)”

SCOTUSblog: “Opinion analysis: Court rejects “dual-officeholding” challenge to military conviction”

“Brief of Professor Aditya Bamzai as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party”

Columbia Law Review: “Adjudication in the Political Branches”

The University of Chicago Law Review: “Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court”

Columbia Law Review Forum: “Ortiz and the Problem of Intrabranch Litigation”

[rayla]

"Can the Supreme Court review the holdings of non-Article III tribunals? Aditya Bamzai of the University of Virginia School of Law considers the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Ortiz v. United States." Well, taking a Justice Gorsuch quote likely well out of context: “Trying to separate the sacred from the secular can be a tricky business — perhaps especially for a civil court whose warrant does not extend to matters divine, ” he wrote.

[joshuahawkins]

1:25 by this logic does that mean that federal courts cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the NLRB? It’s technically in the same category