Jennesis V. Dominguez-Garcia v. United States

In military courts-martial, the Entry of Judgment (EoJ) is the final judgment marking the end of trial and the beginning of the post-trial process. In the Department of the Air Force, a memorandum called a “First Indorsement” memorializes receipt of the EoJ. The First Indorsement summarizes criminal indexing requirements, including indexing for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). On the First Indorsement, one lawyer—a judge advocate—makes a legal determination about whether 18 U.S.C. § 922 applies to a convicted servicemember, thereby effectuating a restriction of that servicemember’s Second Amendment rights. If that legal determination is made in error, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) has statutory authority under Article 66(d)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2), to provide relief. Despite this clear statutory authority, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided that no military appellate court has the authority to correct an erroneous firearm prohibition made during post-trial processing. The question presented is: Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.