{"id":11933,"date":"2017-09-25T12:19:54","date_gmt":"2017-09-25T17:19:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/?p=11933"},"modified":"2017-09-25T12:19:54","modified_gmt":"2017-09-25T17:19:54","slug":"civvie-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2017\/09\/25\/civvie-control\/","title":{"rendered":"Civvie Control"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>If President Trump&#8217;s semi-worship of the military services gives you heartburn, you may wish to pay attention to this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lawfareblog.com\/supreme-court-and-military-control-civil-offices\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">post<\/a> by Steve Vladeck\u00a0on <em><strong>Lawfare<\/strong><\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>On Monday, as part of its annual \u201cLong Conference,\u201d the Supreme Court will consider three petitions (in each of which I\u2019m counsel of record) raising the question\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/lawfareblog.com\/unconventional-test-case-civilian-control-military\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">I wrote about back in February<\/a>: whether an important but little-known\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/10\/973\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">1870 statute<\/a>\u00a0that prohibits active-duty military officers from holding most \u201ccivil offices\u201d in the federal government applies to the Article I Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), the intermediate appeals court that sits between the Guant\u00e1namo military commissions and the D.C. Circuit. At first blush, this may seem like a hyper-specific (and, thus, not especially cert.-worthy) question. But as I explain in the post that follows, thanks to how the lower courts have ruled in these cases (and how the government has argued them), the three petitions\u2014<em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/dalmazzi-v-united-states\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">Dalmazzi v. United States<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.justsecurity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Final-Dalmazzi-Trailer-Petition-1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><em>Cox<\/em>\u00a0v.\u00a0<em>United States<\/em><\/a>, and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/ortiz-v-united-states\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><em>Ortiz<\/em>\u00a0v.\u00a0<em>United States<\/em><\/a>\u2014are actually about much, much more than the CMCR.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, if the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and the government are correct about the 1870 statute, there would be no legal impediment to appointing active-duty military officers to almost every civil office in the U.S. government\u2014even though, as\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/riddle-v-warner\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">the Ninth Circuit has explained<\/a>, the law was intended \u201cto assure civilian preeminence in government,\u00a0<em>i.e.<\/em>, to prevent the military establishment from insinuating itself into the civil branch of government and thereby growing \u2018paramount\u2019 to it.\u201d Thus, although I think it\u2019s clear that CAAF and the government are quite wrong on the merits, the one point on which I hope all can agree is that the issue is of sufficient importance for the future of civil-military relations in this country to warrant the Justices\u2019 attention\u2014and grants of certiorari.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Between this and attacks on the <a href=\"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2017\/07\/22\/salting-the-ground\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Johnson Amendment<\/strong><\/a>, it feels like some of the most important institutions of American life are under attack.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>If President Trump&#8217;s semi-worship of the military services gives you heartburn, you may wish to pay attention to this post by Steve Vladeck\u00a0on Lawfare: On Monday, as part of its annual \u201cLong Conference,\u201d the Supreme Court will consider three petitions (in each of which I\u2019m counsel of record) raising the \u2026 <a class=\"continue-reading-link\" href=\"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/2017\/09\/25\/civvie-control\/\"> Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr; <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11933","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11933"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11933\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11935,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11933\/revisions\/11935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/huewhite.com\/umb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}