[3] The reason for appeal were all generally on the basis that the appointment of the civilian judges to the Coast Guard court of appeals was unconstitutional because, (1) 49 U.S. Code § 323 (which formally applied to the Coast Guard), does not specifically give the Secretary of Transportation the authority to appoint Coast Guard judges, and, (2) judges of the military courts of appeals are principal, and not inferior officers.

The court, however, disagreed with the Petitioner's first point, in that the Secretary of Transportation did not have the authority to appoint military judges.

This resting on the fact that Article 66 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which the petitioner argued gave the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard the power of appointment—merely allows the Coast Guard JAG to assign officers and civilians to the court, and not appoint them.

In conclusion, the Court's opinion can be summarized as follows,"We do not dispute that military appellate judges are charged with exercising significant authority on behalf of the United States.

"What is significant is that the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals have no power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to do so by other Executive officers."