Center for Constitutional Rights v. United States
72 M.J. 126
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellants seek mandamus/prohibition to force access to Manning case documents and open conferences.
- CCA denied their petition for extraordinary relief without prejudice to later challenges.
- Appellants are non-parties to the Manning court-martial and allege public-record access rights.
- Issue framing centered on Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAA) and Army Court jurisdiction, standing, and who may authorize document release.
- Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the writ-appeal.
- Dissenters argue for broader public access rights and judicial authority to compel release and open proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has jurisdiction over petition for extraordinary relief | Appellants rely on Dean Foods-style potential jurisdiction | Government says jurisdiction limited to statutory review; no All Writs Act expansion | Lacked jurisdiction; petition dismissed |
| Whether nonparties have standing to seek access rights | Media/third parties have standing to raise access claims | Nonparties lack standing to pursue relief in ongoing court-martial | Standing not established for nonparties |
| Who may direct release of records and to what extent | Military authorities should release non-classified records publicly | Release authority lies with TJAG; not reviewable by appellate courts | Issue reserved; court dismisses on jurisdictional grounds; no determination on release scope |
| Whether All Writs Act authorizes relief in this context | All Writs Act powers enable aid within jurisdiction to release records | Act does not enlarge and cannot authorize review beyond statutory jurisdiction | All Writs Act power not available to confer relief in ongoing court-martial actions |
| Whether this case differs from Powell and precludes jurisdiction | Accused joined/public interest cases analogize to Powell | Distinguishes because no public-trial issue joined by accused and ongoing trial | Not enough to establish jurisdiction; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (jurisdiction is threshold requirement; burden on party asserting)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1999) (limits All Writs Act for administrative unreviewable matters)
- Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 533-536 (U.S. 1999) (All Writs Act confines to existing jurisdiction)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (public records and access rights discussed)
- Powell, ABC, Inc. v. Powell, 47 M.J. 363 (C.A.A.F.1997) (public access rights when accused entitled to public hearing)
- United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F.2008) (jurisdiction within integrated statutory framework)
- Weiss v. United States, 36 M.J. 224 (C.M.A.1992) (military judges’ authority and review context)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (U.S. 2009) (All Writs Act limitations; need jurisdiction)
- Powell, 47 M.J. 363 (C.A.A.F.1997) (public access rights in public-trial context)
- Travers, 25 M.J. 61 (C.M.A.1987) (open courts-martial principle)