Military Justice Law

United States Law

Other U.S. Government Documents and Regulations

Manual for Courts-Martial (2008)
Military Judges' Benchbook (2009)
Army Regulation 27-10: Military Justice (2005)
Uniform Rules of Practice Before Air Force Courts-Martial (2005)
Department of the Navy Corrections Manual (2006)
Air Force Instruction 51-201: Administration of Military Justice (2007)
Naval Legal Services Command Manual (2002)
Navy Manual of the Judge Advocate General (2007)
U.S. Coast Guard Military Justice Manual (2000)
Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct (2005)
Army Regulation 27-26: Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1992)
Navy Rules of Professional Conduct (2004)
Army Field Manual 27-14: Legal Guide for Soldiers (1991)

Reports

Courts-Martial: An Overview, Congressional Research Service (2004)
Morgan Papers on the Drafting of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Harvard University Library Digital Collection

Significant Cases

United States Supreme Court

Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1950). The Court held that Congress cannot subject civilians like the ex-serviceman in question to trial by court-martial and that ex-servicemen are entitled to benefits of safeguards afforded those tried in regular federal constitutional courts.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court held that the provisions of the UCMJ extending court-martial jurisdiction to persons accompanying the armed forces outside the continental limits of the United States could not be constitutionally applied to trial of civilian dependents of members of the armed forces overseas, in times of peace, for capital offenses..
Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999). The Court held that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to enjoin the President and various military officials from dropping a convict from the rolls of the Air Force.
United States v. Denedo, Slip Opinion (2009). The Court held that Article I courts, retain jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to consider coram nobis petitions that allege a prior judgment of conviction was fundamentally flawed.

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (formerly the Court of Military Appeals)

United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967). The court established the procedure for hearings on collateral issues that require both findings of fact and conclusions of law.
United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388 (1986). The Court held that the exercise of unlawful command influence was justification for voiding court-martial proceedings. The decision included several factors that should be taken into consideration when establishing existence of unlawful command influence.
United States v. Lonetree, 35 M.J. 396 (1992). The Court held that: 1) civilian intelligence agaent's promise of confidentiality to accused who was disclosing invovement with Soviet agents did not render confession involuntary; 2) intelligence agents are not obligated to give Article 31 warning before interrogating the suspect; 3) accused's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by refusal to grant discovery to accused of testifying agent's name or permit accused to cross-examine agent-witness about his background, 4) extraordinary nature of case and risk that classified informationmight have been divulged during public appellate oral arguments justified the Court's decision to close oral argument; and 5) allegations of ineffective assistance through civilian defense counsel's advice regarding plea negotiations states colorable claim that entitled accused to a DuBay hearing.
ABC, Inc. v. Powell, 47 M.J. 363 (1997). The Court held that considerations of victims’ privacy and possible influence from outside sources did not outweigh the public’s right to access an Art. 32 hearing.
United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (2001). The Court held that the military judge did not err in denying challenge for cause on the basis of actual bias or implied bias of a panel member who ordered the accused to deploy to Macedonia. The President's decision to deploy the Armed Forces in Macedonia was a nonjusticiable political question.
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (2002). The Court held that it had the power to grant relief short of dismissal in cases where it finds excessive post-trial delay, even without a showing of “actual prejudice” within the meaning of Article 59.
United States v. Loving, 62 M.J. 235 (2005). The Court held that a petition for habeas corpus under the All Writs Act was the proper procedural vehicle for obtaining collateral review over assertions of error as to the legality of the sentence. Such review was likewise proper between the finality of direct review and before approval of the sentence by the President.

Military Justice Law Around the Globe

Australia

Defense Force Discipline Act (1982)
Lane v. Morrison (2009). The Australian High Court declared Australia's military justice system unconstitutional. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation released a webcast analysis of the decision.

Canada

Code of Service Discipline
Code of Service Discipline Overview, Office of the Judge Advocate General

India

Ireland

Defense Act of 1954

Philippines

Aquino v. Military Commission 2 (1975). The Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the military commission trial of Aquino was lawful in spite of the fact that he was a civilian and civilian courts were open because there was an overpowering necessity to restore public order within the country. Such a necessity gave the President broad discretion to establish military tribunals to dispense the necessary justice.

Turkey

Turkish Military Jurisdiction System

United Kingdom

Armed Forces Act (2006)
Explanatory Notes of the Armed Forces Act
Al-Skeini v. Secretary of State for Defence, United Kingdom House of Lords (2007). The House of Lords examined the applicability of the UK Human Rights Act to the actions of British forces in Basra in 2003. The case involved the deaths of six Iraqis, five who died while UK troops were on patrol and one who died in UK custody. The House of Lords dismissed the cases involving the first five deaths by holding that the UK did not have "effective control" over the terriroty. However, the House of Lords held that the UK did have "effective control" over the detention facility where the sixth death resulted. The British government was required to conduct an independent, thorough and impartial investigation into the circumstances of the sixth death since the man died as a result of injuries sustained in UK custody.

International Sources of Military Justice Law

Engel v. The Netherlands, European Court of Human Rights (1976). The Court ruled that Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the right to liberty and security was not applicable to interim aggravated arrests that were a part of military discipline.
Findlay v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights (1997). The Court found that allowing the convening officer to also act as the individual whose ratification made the decision effective and was given the power to amend the sentence as he saw fit impaired the independence and impartiality of a military tribunal. This impairment was not remedied by the presence of other safeguards, such as the involvement of the judge advocate general, or an oath taken by members of the court-martial board.
Jordan v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights (2000). The Court held that there was a violation of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because the applicant's commanding officer could not be regarded as independent of the parties. Article 5 requires that everyone arrested or detained be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power.
Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2005). The Court ruled on that military jurisdiction in Chile must be limited solely to crimes committed by military personnel in active service. The Court not only ruled that Chile must eliminate the application of military jurisdiction to civilians and inactive military personnel, but that Chile must guarantee due process of law and that court members must be competent, impartial, and independent.