Appeals of criminal trial orders
Khalid Shaikh Mohammad v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- What it’s about
- Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and the other petitioners challenged the D.C. Circuit’s use of mandamus (a special order directing a lower court) to review a criminal trial court’s procedural ruling, which the appeals court said followed settled precedent.
- Who it affects
- Mohammad and the other petitioners did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court did not resolve the legal questions in their case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case (denied the petition), so it did not decide the questions; Justice Kavanaugh took no part.
The petition asked whether an appeals court could use mandamus when the government had no statutory right to appeal, and whether it could block a trial-court ruling the appeals court said followed settled precedent.
Question presented
1. Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), where the government has no statutory right to an interlocutory or final judgment appeal, to issue a writ of mandamus to review an interlocutory procedural order in a criminal case that does not have the effect of a dismissal. 2. Whether a trial court’s procedural ruling in a criminal case may be enjoined by mandamus, where the court of appeals acknowledged that the trial court followed well-established and uncontested precedent.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.