Elyjah Abdual Ford v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the Appointments Clause [cannot be circumvented] by unilaterally appointing an incumbent to a new and distinct office”
• recognizing that the Supreme Court “[adheres] to [the] principle of deference in a variety of contexts [such as] where the constitutional rights of servicemen [are] implicated”
• recognizing that the Supreme Court \[adheres] to [the] principle of deference in a variety of contexts [such as] where the constitutional rights of servicemen [are] implicated\
• noting that judicial deference is “at its apogee” when reviewing congressional decisionmaking in the military context (emphasis added) (quoting Rostker, 543 U.S. at 70)
• discussing provisions that “insulat[e] military-judges from the effects of command influence” and thus “preserve judicial impartiality”
• holding appointment of military judges need not satisfy requirements of Appointments Clause and did not violate the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, and describing system of courts-martial established pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 14

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).