Philip Sundel v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · January 26, 2021 · No. 19-1234

Summary

The D.C. Circuit dismissed a petition for review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a), which limits appellate jurisdiction to challenges to a "final judgment" (i.e., a conviction) in the military commission system. The petitioner, a government attorney, sought review of a procedural ruling closing a classified hearing, not a judgment, and the collateral-order doctrine could not create jurisdiction because the statute requires a judgment. The court also noted prudential standing concerns but did not reach them.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
Walker; Henderson; Silberman
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
January 26, 2021
Docket number
19-1234
Procedural posture
On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Philip Lawrence Sundel v. United States of America
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

military lawsubject matter jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionappellate procedurefinal judgment rule

Practice areas

Military LawAppellate Procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the D.C. Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 950g(a) to review an appeal from a non-final procedural ruling of a military commission.
  2. Whether the collateral-order doctrine can provide jurisdiction when there is no final judgment.

Holdings

  1. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Sundel does not appeal a 'final judgment' as required by the statute.

Key quotations

In the military commission system, a final judgment is akin to a conviction. (5)
Because Sundel does not appeal a judgment, we lack jurisdiction. (6)
Thus, no matter how broadly or narrowly we construe the word 'final' — no matter how many practical considerations we take into account — we would still, at the end of the day, lack a judgment. (6)
We dismiss Sundel's petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (6)

Factual background

Petitioner Philip Sundel, an attorney with the Military Commissions Defense Organization, sought to attend a closed classified hearing in the case of Ibrahim al Qosi, a former Guantanamo detainee who had pled guilty and been released. Sundel was not al Qosi's lawyer. The military judge denied his motion to attend the hearing, and the Court of Military Commission Review affirmed the denial.

Procedural history

Sundel, an attorney at the Military Commissions Defense Organization, sought to attend a closed classified hearing for Ibrahim al Qosi, a former Guantanamo detainee. The military judge denied his motion. The Court of Military Commission Review affirmed the closure. Sundel then petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…