Whether this Court's plurality decision in Burnes v. Wilson remains viable when applied to crimes unconnected to military service but prosecuted by Article I military tribunals

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether this Court’s plurality decision in Burnes v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953) (Article III habeas review not appropriate where Article I military tribunals provided “full” and “fair” direct review, or, where Article I military tribunals were “adequate” to make constitutional determinations), remains viable when applied to crimes unconnected to military service but prosecuted by Article I military tribunals. II. Whether the Court of Appeals articulated a workable test to correctly interpret what “full,” “fair,” and “adequate” Article I direct review legally means to establish a practicable legal standard upon Article III review, to ensure stability and predictability under stare decisis, especially where the Tenth Circuit is the “North Star” for military habeas appeals and each Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court is poised to follow the test announced in Santucci v. Commandant, 66 F 4th 844, 856 (10th Cir. 2023). Ill. Whether the Court of Appeals adequately considered the historical rationales supporting Article III deference to military constitutional determinations to ascertain if the rationale extends to crimes unconnected to military service.