Cox v. United States

2018-06-22
Share:

Headline: Court dismisses its review of multiple appeals from the military appeals court, ending Supreme Court consideration and leaving the earlier proceedings in those cases unresolved by this order.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Ends Supreme Court review of these appeals.
  • Issues no published reasoning or new legal rule in this order.
Topics: military appeals, procedural dismissal, Supreme Court order

Summary

Background

The filings list six named individuals—Laith G. Cox; Courtney A. Craig; Andrew K. Lewis; Ian T. Miller; Joseph D. Morchinek; and Kelvin L. O’Shaughnessy—each identified as a petitioner against the United States. The cases came up to the Supreme Court from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The slip opinion is labeled per curiam and carries a formal notice that it is subject to revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.

Reasoning

The opinion itself contains a single, short per curiam statement: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered." The Court does not provide analysis, findings of fact, or published reasoning in this order. The text gives no explanation for why the Court chose to dismiss its review or how it resolved any specific legal questions raised by the appeals.

Real world impact

By dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, the Supreme Court ended its own review of these appeals in this order. The short per curiam disposition supplies no merits decision or published legal rule for lower courts to follow, and it contains no reasoning for public guidance. The slip opinion’s notice also indicates the text may be edited for formal revision before the official preliminary print appears, but the order itself is final in form as presented here.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases