2008 Supreme Court term

UNITED STATES v. JACOB DENEDO.

Dockets 08-267Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Petitioner, the case questions whether military appellate courts have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to entertain coram nobis challenges to final court‑martial convictions.

According to Petitioner, the case also asks whether a civilian, such as the respondent, may invoke the military court system for such relief.

Background and question before the Court

According to Petitioner, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces previously held that military appellate courts possess open‑ended jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to entertain a coram nobis challenge to the merits of a final court‑martial conviction.

Justice Ginsburg asked how the issue differs from the general rule that a judgment becomes final and has preclusive effect once the appellate route has been exhausted or the time to pursue it has expired.

What each side argues

United States (Petitioner)

According to Petitioner, military appellate courts lack jurisdiction under the All Writs Act because Congress did not confer such authority.

According to Petitioner, the Uniform Code of Military Justice limits appellate jurisdiction to the findings and sentences of a court‑martial; it does not permit further review such as coram nobis.

According to Petitioner, congress could legislate broadly for collateral remedies, but the All Writs Act does not itself provide an independent basis of jurisdiction; such basis exists only in Article III courts.

According to Mr. Shah (Petitioner), according to Mr. Shah (Petitioner), the government’s position is that a person who has completed his enlistment cannot be retried in military courts after a conviction is set aside.

Jacob Denedo (Respondent)

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 1cb0f708d6799d52356f-r1-dfee6d22d9f1f5e7.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.