Some useful articles for March 2022 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Orin Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and Geofence Warrants: A Critical Look at United States v. Chatrie. Lawfare, March 12, 2022.
Cave, Christensen, Fidell, Fissell, and Maurer, The Division of Authority Between the Special Trial Counsel and Commanders Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Planning Now for the Next Phase of Reform. Lawfare, February 28, 2022.
Yes, Chevron comes up in military cases (at least 42). See, e.g., United States v. Alkazahg. 81 M.J. 764 (N-M Ct. Crim. App. 2021); United States v. Johnson, 76 M.J. 673 (A. F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017) rev. denied 77 M.J. 17 (C.A.A.F. 2017); Amy Semet, Statutory Interpretation and Chevron Defense in the Appellate Courts: An Empirical Analysis. 12 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 621 (2022).
Kerr, Orin S., Focusing the CFAA in Van Buren (January 27, 2022). Supreme Court Review (Forthcoming), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4018772 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4018772
- Van Buren v. United States (2021) is the United States Supreme Court’s first decision interpreting the federal computer crime law known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). This essay, presents an overview of the decision and its significance for debates over the CFAA’s meaning. It analogizes Van Buren to partially focusing a lens: The Court’s opinion brings new ground into focus, letting us see a range of landmarks that were blurry before. But it leaves important details hazy, leaving their resolution to future cases that can bring the CFAA into sharper focus. It also argues that Van Buren’s reasoning provides substantial support for an authentication-based understanding of CFAA liability.