EV v. United States
2016 CAAF LEXIS 497
| C.A.A.F. | 2016Background
- EV (appellant) sought mandamus after a military judge ordered production (in camera review and limited disclosure) of her mental health records following sexual interaction with Sgt. Martinez.
- Martinez requested discovery of EV’s mental health treatment records; the Government initially resisted, citing privilege and relevance.
- Two pages of mental health records had been waived and produced; after review, Martinez moved for reconsideration; the judge ordered full in camera review and then limited disclosure under protective order.
- EV petitioned the Navy‑Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) for a writ of mandamus, which was denied as not showing a clear and indisputable right to relief.
- EV then petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) under Article 6b(e)(1), UCMJ, seeking mandamus to correct the judge’s disclosure order.
- CAAF held that Article 6b(e)(1) grants mandamus jurisdiction only to the Courts of Criminal Appeals and, because Congress did not provide review to CAAF, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAAF has jurisdiction to grant mandamus under Article 6b(e)(1) for alleged victims | EV: CAAF may issue mandamus to correct alleged abuse of discretion in disclosure of privileged records | Government/CCA: Article 6b(e)(1) grants mandamus authority to the Courts of Criminal Appeals only; CAAF lacks jurisdiction | CAAF lacks jurisdiction; Article 6b(e)(1) unambiguously limits mandamus to the Courts of Criminal Appeals |
| Whether All Writs Act supplies independent jurisdiction | EV: All Writs Act can support CAAF’s jurisdiction to issue writs in aid of its functions | Government: All Writs Act does not expand federal jurisdiction beyond statutes; must look to Article 6b | All Writs Act does not confer independent jurisdiction; cannot overcome Article 6b’s limits |
| Whether LRM v. Kastenberg controls jurisdiction here | EV: LRM suggests CAAF may entertain similar petitions | Respondent: LRM was on different jurisdictional footing (certification) and predated Article 6b amendments | LRM is inapposite; decided under different procedures and before Congress legislated on victims’ mandamus remedy |
| Whether statutory text is ambiguous requiring legislative history | EV: (implied) CAAF could interpret statute to allow review | Government: Text is plain and unambiguous; no further review authorized | Statute is unambiguous; no resort to legislative history needed; Congress did not provide CAAF review |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (extraordinary‑writ standard)
- Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 (mandamus is drastic and extraordinary)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (All Writs Act operates in aid of existing jurisdiction)
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (All Writs Act does not create jurisdiction)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1 (plain‑text statutory interpretation)
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (declining ungranted jurisdiction is appropriate)
- LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (CAAF decision distinguished on jurisdictional basis)