Clinton v. Goldsmith
United States Supreme Court
526 U.S. 529 (1999)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Major James Goldsmith (plaintiff) was tried by general court-martial and convicted of willful disobedience, aggravated assault, and assault consummated by battery. Goldsmith was sentenced to six years’ confinement and forfeiture of $2,500 of pay per month for six years. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and the sentence in 1995. Goldsmith did not appeal the court’s judgment and therefore his conviction became final at that time. In 1996, Congress passed legislation authorizing the President of the United States to remove from the rolls of the armed forces any officer who had been sentenced to more than six months’ confinement and who had served at least six months of his sentence. The Air Force immediately notified Goldsmith that he would be removed from the rolls, resulting in a total forfeiture of his military pay. Goldsmith responded to the notification in two ways. First, he filed a claim with the Secretary of the Air Force. Second, he challenged the constitutionality of his pending removal from the rolls as part of an unrelated appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The court, relying on the All Writs Act (the act), granted Goldsmith’s petition and enjoined the president and several military officials from removing him from the rolls. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Souter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.