The majority held it had jurisdiction over the case as courts martial are judicial in character and are like territorial and District of Columbia courts, which have long been within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court, in that they are authorized by specific grants of power in Article I, the dispute here is case for Article III purposes and the action in the Court is one of review not an original proceeding. It held that the judges dual office holding was authorized by 10 USC 950f(b)(2) and a subsequent presidential appointment to remain on the commission review court made no difference and the appointments clause was not violated because the Court has never imposed a bar of dual office holding under that clause and Ortiz made no showing how the judge could be improperly influenced though his dual office holding. Thomas added a concurrence arguing that appellate review here is constitutional as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises judicial power in actual cases involving private rights of life, liberty and property.