B. M. v. United States, et al.

Petitioner, a military sexual assault victim, holds a psychotherapist-patient privilege that was violated in the court-martial of her assailant. Pursuant to its absolute power to make rules governing the military, Congress requires the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (“CAAF”), an Article I tribunal, to review cases sent to it by a judge advocate general. The Navy Judge Advocate General sent this case to the CAAF to review whether the military judge’s rulings violated Petitioner’s privilege. Holding that Petitioner lacked the standing required in Article III courts, the CAAF refused to review the case. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the CAAF may prudentially apply Article III limits on judicial power despite its obligation to review cases in accordance with a law enacted pursuant to Congress’s power to make rules governing the military.

2. If Article III limits apply, whether a victim has standing to challenge court-martial rulings affecting her psychotherapist-patient privilege.