Does Goldsmith Foreclose all Forms of Collateral Review by Military Courts?
The CAAF held that a military appellate court has jurisdiction to collaterally review court-martial decisions that have become final under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651 (“the Act”). See Brief for Petitioner the United States at 7. The United States argues that the CAAF did not have jurisdiction to entertain Denedo’s writ of coram nobis because it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. Goldsmith. See id. at 12-13. In Clinton v. Goldsmith, the Supreme Court recognized that the Act does not give the CAAF the authority to oversee all matters dealing with criminal judgments it once affirmed. See id. at 7 (citing Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 536 (1999)). Furthermore, the United States notes that Goldsmith determined that the CAAF does not maintain “continuing jurisdiction”-jurisdiction over all legal developments and issues that may arise subsequent to a holding in a case that had initially fallen under military jurisdiction. See id. at 14-15. Denedo argues a co
