Military Justice

U.S. Air Force/Airman 1st Class Grace Lee

The U.S. military retains legal jurisdiction over members of the armed services and prisoners of war, as well as--more controversially--unlawful combatants and those who contest their status as combatants.  In the years after 9/11, much of the discussion on military justice has focused on the use of military jurisdiction to detain and try suspected combatants. However, issues such as sexual assault within the armed forces and the high-profile court-martial of Pfc. Chelsea Manning continue to remind us that questions of military justice are not confined to military detentions and commissions--indeed, far from it.

 

Latest in Military Justice

The Ukraine Connection

What Lt. Col. Vindman’s Testimony Says About Civil-Military Relations and Military Justice

Some commentators have advocated for the National Security Council staffer to be court-martialed for obeying a congressional subpoena over the objection of the executive branch. But there are a number of problems with this argument.

Military Justice

Trump’s Intervention in the Golsteyn Case: Judicial Independence, Military Justice or Both?

The final two months of 2018 have been a remarkably eventful period for observers of American civil-military relations—even for the Trump administration. In just the final two months of 2018, there was the pre-midterm election deployment of troops to the southwest border in response to the supposed “invasion” of the migrant caravan.

U.S. Supreme Court

Are Military Courts Really Just Like Civilian Criminal Courts?

At the end of the last term, the Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 opinion that the high court exercises appellate jurisdiction over the United States’ military justice system—a system it says begins at the court-martial level, or trial level, through each Service’s Court of Criminal Appeals, up to the court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), a tribunal with five president-appointed, Senate-confirmed civilian judges.

U.S. Supreme Court

Summary: The Supreme Court Rules in Ortiz v. United States

On Friday, in a 7–2 decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held in Ortiz v. United States that Judge Martin Mitchell could simultaneously serve as a judge on the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) and the Air Force’s Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) without violating Congress’s general “dual-officeholding ban” on military officers taking up civilian offices.

Subscribe to Lawfare

EmailRSSKindle