Michael New v. Donald H. Rumsfeld — Reply Brief of Petitioner

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

We filed in the United States Supreme Court a reply to the Government’s brief in opposition to former Army Specialist Michel G. New’s petition for review of his January 1995 court-martial conviction (for violation of an order requiring him to wear the United Nations uniform prescribed for deployment to a U.N. operation in Macedonia).

After we had filed the Petition for Certiorari in November 2006, the Government filed a waiver with the Court, presumably indicating thereby that it considered New’s petition to be without merit.  In December 2006, however, the Court requested the Government to file a response which it did on March 20, 2007 with a brief in opposition. Read More

Michael G. New v. Donald H. Rumsfeld — SG ordered to file response

Michael Harless Constitutional Law

On December 21, 2006, William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court, wrote to the Solicitor General informing the General that, although his office had waived a right to respond to the Michael New’s petition for certiorari, the Court has directed the Clerk to request that the Solicitor General file a response to the petition on or before January 22, 2007. (This deadline was subsequently was extended to February 21, 2007.)  According to the rules of the Court, within ten days after the filing of the response, the Court will decide whether New’s petition for review will be granted or denied. Read More

Michael G. New v. Donald H. Rumsfeld — Petition for Certiorari

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

Today, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review by the United States Supreme Court of the dismissal of Michael G. New’s collateral attack on his January 1996 court-martial.  (Former Army Specialist New was convicted of disobedience of an allegedly lawful order for failure to wear the United Nations uniform prescribed for his unit’s deployment as part of a U.N. commanded operation in Macedonia.) Read More

Michael New Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Today, the legal team for Michael New filed a petition for rehearing en banc of New’s collateral attack on his court-martial conviction for disobedience of a “lawful” order.  In his petition, New documents the unmistakable fact that the three-judge panel decision — affirming the district court’s dismissal of his complaint that he was denied due process of law at his court-martial — departed completely from the standard of review established in the District of Columbia Circuit for nearly 40 years. Read More

Michael New Oral Argument

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On February 16 at 9:30AM, Herb Titus is scheduled for oral argument on behalf of Michael New before Circuit Judges Randolph and Garland and Senior Judge Williams, urging the appellate panel to reverse U.S. District Judge Friedman’s order dismissing Mr. New’s claim that he was unconstitutionally convicted of disobedience of a lawful order. Central to Mr. New’s constitutional claims is the contention that he was deprived of his liberty without due process of law by a court-martial proceeding (a) in which the prosecution was relieved of its statutory duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the order to wear the U.N. uniform was a “lawful” order and (b) in which the defendant was denied any opportunity to show that the order violated both his statutory and constitutional rights on the ground that his claims raised “political questions” outside the jurisdiction of the court-martial. William J. Olson and John S. Miles of the firm and Henry L. Hamilton are with Mr. Titus on the briefs. Read More

Michael New Reply Brief

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On November 23, 2005, Michael New’s legal team filed a hard-hitting reply brief to the United States government’s continuing attempt to avoid New’s claim that his 1996 court-martial conviction for disobedience of a “lawful” order was unconstitutional. For over 10 years now, the government has sought to dismiss New’s claim that a 1995 order to wear a U.N. uniform and submit to the operational control of a foreign military officer was a political question. In his reply brief, New argues convincingly that the cases upon which the government has relied are totally irrelevant, having to do with orders issued to American soliders to serve under American, not foreign, command. Read More

Michael New Initial Brief

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

We filed, on behalf of Michael New, an Initial Brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This brief presents for decision whether the district court improperly dismissed — for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — each of the four counts of New’s Second Amended Complaint, collaterally attacking his January 25, 1996 court-martial conviction and bad conduct discharge for having violated an allegedly lawful order contrary to Article 92(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Read More

Michael New v. United States — Petition for Certiorari

Michael Harless Constitutional Law, U. S. Supreme Court

On Monday, September 10, 2001, nearly six years after he refused to put on the United Nations uniform and to submit to the command and control of a foreign military officer, Michael New has taken his fight for justice to the United States Supreme Court.

At the heart of his appeal is New’s right to his day in court. In a petition for writ of certiorari, New is asking the High Court to overrule the judgment of three military courts which essentially refused to deal with his claims that the Constitution does not allow the President unilaterally to order American soldiers to fight for a foreign government. Read More