Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. USA, No. 11-1324 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 23, 2013.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015 CMCR-09-001 Filed On: September 25, 2015 Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, Petitioner v. United States of America, Respondent BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan*, Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the petition of the United States of America for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that the petition be granted. This case will be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed June 12, 2015, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs and the appendix electronically, the parties file 30 paper copies each of the briefs and appendix, in accordance with the following schedule: Brief for Petitioner Bahlul October 13, 2015 Appendix October 13, 2015 Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioner (if any) October 13, 2015 * Circuit Judge Srinivasan did not participate in this matter. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 11-1324 September Term, 2015 Brief for Respondent United States November 2, 2015 Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent (if any) November 2, 2015 Reply Brief for Petitioner Bahlul November 12, 2015 It is FURTHER ORDERED that in addition to other issues raised in the petition of the United States for rehearing en banc, the parties are specifically directed to address in their briefs the following: (1) The standard of appellate review of Bahlul’s conviction for conspiracy to commit war crimes. See, e.g., Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015); CFTC v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986); and (2) Whether the Define and Punish Clause of Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power to define as an Offense against the Law of Nations -- triable before a law-of-war military commission -- a conspiracy to commit an Offense against the Law of Nations, to wit, a conspiracy to commit war crimes; and whether the exercise of such power transgresses Article III of the Constitution. Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of argument, the court will grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons. In addition to electronic filing, parties and amici curiae are directed to hand deliver their briefs and appendix to the Clerk’s office on the date due. The briefs and appendix must contain the date that the case is scheduled for oral argument at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8). A separate order will issue regarding allocation of oral argument time. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk Page 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
