Ortiz v. United States
The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the USCAAF, even though that court was created by Congress via Article I of the United States Constitution and is not an Article III court.
138 S. Ct. 2165 · No. 16-1423 · 2017 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 22, 2018 · argued Jan 16, 2018
Judicial power · Supreme Court's certiorari, writ of error, or appeals jurisdiction
Majority opinion: Elena Kagan
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Ortiz lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Ortiz was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. 427 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) in relationship to Article III Courts. The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the USCAAF, even though that court was created by Congress via Article I of the United States Constitution and is not an Article III court. The case was centered on the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. The Court declared the Appointments Clause does not impose a prohibition on an officer of the United States from serving in two roles simultaneously. Rather, the clause only concerns itself with the method of appointment.
The case is notable for the court's reliance on the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Elena KaganWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Samuel AlitoWrote a dissent
Neil GorsuchJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- OrtizMilitary personnel, or dependent
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 USCS 1259 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 22, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Ortiz lost.
- Jan 16, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: affirmed.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
1 other argued case since 1946 on supreme Court's certiorari, writ of error, or appeals jurisdiction, newest first.
- Federal Election Commission v. NRA Political Victory Fund et al.513 U.S. 88Dec 6, 1994 · 513 U.S. 88Judicial power7–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.