United States v. Mohammad, 391 F. Supp. 3d 1066

Ali Abdul‑Aziz Ali (Ammar al Baluchi) moved to disqualify all judges of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) and to dismiss an interlocutory government appeal, arguing the Court lost independence after Presiding Judge Pollard referred an ethics complaint about him to the Department of Defense (DoD) Standards of Conduct Office (SOCO).
The underlying ethics allegation arose from Omar Khadr's filings claiming Pollard improperly used his judicial status in private law practice; Pollard found the allegation meritless but voluntarily referred it to SOCO because AOC declined to provide ethics support to CMCR judges.
SOCO (acting for the DoD General Counsel) issued an advisory opinion finding no ethics violation; Pollard posted that opinion on the Khadr docket.
Ali argued (1) the referral and SOCO opinion created a binding precedent subjecting all CMCR judges to DoD ethical supervision (thus compromising judicial independence) and (2) the appearance of bias required disqualification or dismissal/recusal and referral to the D.C. Circuit.
The Court considered jurisdiction over mandamus petitions and the interlocutory appeal and concluded it had authority to decide the motions under the MCA and mandamus statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Pollard's referral to SOCO created binding precedent subjecting CMCR judges to DoD ethical supervision	Ali: Referral and publication created court‑wide precedent, binding judges to SOCO and DoD control	Court/Pollard: Referral was individual, not a panel adjudication; unpublished acts are not binding precedent	Denied — referral had no precedential effect on CMCR
Whether the referral compromised CMCR judicial independence	Ali: Involving DoD ethics office gives DoD influence/control over judges, undermining independence	Court: SOCO only provides advisory ethics advice, has no enforcement power over judicial decision‑making and is statutorily barred from coercing judges	Denied — referral did not compromise judicial independence
Whether the referral created an appearance of bias requiring disqualification	Ali: Use of DoD ethics channel creates appearance that judges are supervised/biased by DoD	Court: Reasonable‑person test, knowing all circumstances, shows no reasonable appearance of partiality; D.C. Circuit precedent rejects similar fears	Denied — no appearance of bias warranting recusal
Whether the Court had jurisdiction to decide the motions	Ali: Requested referral to D.C. Circuit; sought dismissal of government appeal	Court: CMCR has jurisdiction over mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction and interlocutory appeals under the MCA	Court exercised jurisdiction and decided the motions

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir.) (court integrity and public confidence considerations)
McBryde v. Comm. to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders of Judicial Conference of U.S., 264 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir.) (judicial independence concerns from other branches)
In re Khadr, 823 F.3d 92 (D.C. Cir.) (CMCR judges' protections from Executive removal; prior review of Pollard issues)
Intercollegiate Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 684 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir.) (agency oversight does not necessarily permit influence over judicial decision‑making)
In re Al‑Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224 (D.C. Cir.) (appearance of impartiality and recusal standards)
In re Mohammad, 866 F.3d 473 (D.C. Cir.) (recusal principles applicable to CMCR)
Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (U.S.) (judicial restraint regarding constitutional questions)