No. 24-386
B. M. v. United States, et al.
Tags: article-iii-standing congressional-power court-martial judicial-review military-privilege victim-rights
Latest Conference:
2024-12-13
(distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether the CAAF may prudentially apply Article III limits on judicial power despite its obligation to review cases in accordance with a law enacted pursuant to Congress's power to make rules governing the military.
2. If Article III limits apply, whether a victim has standing to challenge court-martial rulings affecting her psychotherapist-patient privilege.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces can prudentially apply Article III standing limits when reviewing a military court-martial case involving a sexual assault victim's privilege
Docket Entries
2024-12-16
Petition DENIED.
2024-11-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2024.
2024-11-25
Reply of petitioner B. M. filed. (Distributed)
2024-11-05
Brief of LCDR Dominic Bailey in opposition submitted.
2024-11-05
Brief of respondent LCDR Dominic Bailey in opposition filed. (Distributed)
2024-11-04
Amicus brief of R.R. submitted.
2024-11-04
Brief amicus curiae of R.R. filed.
2024-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-23
Rescheduled. Petition distributed in error.
2024-10-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2024-10-07
Motion (24M9) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted.
2024-07-24
MOTION (24M9) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-02
Motion (24M9) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
2024-07-02
Attorneys
B. M.
Peter Jeffrey Coote — Pennoni Associates Inc., Petitioner
LCDR Dominic Bailey
United States, et al.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent