WASHINGTON (CN) — In a 2-1 vote, the DC Circuit ruled Tuesday that it is constitutional for the military to court-martial retired military personnel for post-retirement crimes.
The decision of the appeals court panel reverses the decision of a federal judge. Two Trump-appointed judges — U.S. Circuit judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker — had the majority. with Clinton-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel dissenting.
Writing for the majority, Rao said the question of jurisdiction hinges on a single factor.
“Whether a person can be subject to the jurisdiction of a court martial depends on one factor: the military status of the accused,” Rao wrote. “Based on Supreme Court precedents interpreting the Make Rules clause as well as the original meaning of that clause, we believe a person has “military status” if they have a formal relationship with the military that includes duty to obey military orders.”
Steven Larrabee served as a Marine for 20 years before retiring as a reservist. Although no longer on active duty, Larrabee continued to reside near his old base in Iwakuni, Japan, working as a civilian employee on base and managing two local bars.
Larrabee sexually assaulted a bartender – who happened to be the wife of an active duty Marine – after a night of drinking. Military police obtained video of the assault on Larrabee’s phone after the bartender reported the incident. The military charged Larrabee with sexual assault and indecent recording under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ.
After pleading guilty at his court-martial, Larrabee was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment and a dishonorable discharge.
On appeal to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Larrabee claimed that the military lacked jurisdiction to court-martial him. He said the UCMJ provision that allowed reservists to be court-martialed was unconstitutional because retirees are not part of the “land and naval forces” that Congress has placed under the jurisdiction of courts-martial. Larrabee’s conviction was upheld without reaching the constitutional issue posed by the case.
The United States Supreme Court declined to hear Larrabee’s case in 2019.
After grueling appeals in military courts, Larrabee took his case to federal district court, arguing that the UCMJ provision was unconstitutional because a Fleet Marine reservist is virtually a civilian and not subject to regulation. under the rule-making clause. This clause falls under Article I of the Constitution and allows Congress to make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces.
The district court ruled in favor of Larrabee, but the DC Circuit backtracked on Tuesday. The majority concluded that as a Fleet Marine reservist, Larrabee was a member or part of the armed forces, such that his case fell within military jurisdiction under the rule-making clause.
The Supreme Court did not create a specific test to distinguish civilians from the military, but Rao said High Court rulings can be interpreted to suggest a person is in the land and naval forces if they have a relationship. formal with the military which includes an obligation to obey orders.
Not only does the Supreme Court precedent come to this conclusion, Rao said, but it is also consistent with the original meaning of the rule-making clause. In fact, she said that the court martial is actually older than the Constitution itself, so one must look to English constitutional history to interpret the clause.
“The organization and regulations of the British army in the 18th century, as well as an American court-martial proceeding at the end of the Revolutionary War, suggest that at the foundation the term ‘land and naval forces’ was understood to include inactive forces. service personnel who remained obligated to obey military orders, including the order to serve again if called upon,” the leader said. “These inactive duty soldiers, in other words, were considered to have ‘military status’.”
Rao cites an example from the 18th century involving officers on half pay. These officers – similar to reservists now – were allowed to live ordinary civilian lives, but would return to active service when ordered. Some of these officers were court-martialed under the Mutiny Act, starting a debate over whether to apply this jurisdiction to half-pay officers. Parliament eventually amended the law in 1748 to specify that officers on half pay were subject to court-martial jurisdiction. However, this action was reversed after public outrage, and Parliament amended the law to apply this skill only to certain ranks.
Following this structure, the Continental Army gave retired American officers half pay. This action was solidified by Congress in 1781.
“The idea that an inactive duty soldier could be part of the ‘forces’ of the Continental Army was therefore not foreign to Americans of the founding era,” Rao wrote.
Tatel agreed that the case hinged on military status, but disagreed with the majority’s conclusion. He warned that the court’s decision extended the jurisdiction of the court martial beyond the limits of the Constitution and supporting case law.
“I disagree that the type of order Larrabee is potentially subject to — a recall order summoning him from civilian life to take up arms — is like any other military order,” Tatel wrote. “By treating it as such, the tribunal extends court-martial jurisdiction not only to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, but also to approximately two million retired military personnel. Because this dramatic expansion of court martial jurisdiction goes beyond what the Constitution authorizes and the case law supports, I respectfully disagree with this part of the court’s opinion.
While acknowledging the majority’s correct interpretation of the rule-making clause, Tatel said the decision did not take into account the context of the rest of the Constitution.
He said reservists are subject to recall orders, but are otherwise treated very differently from active duty members. Members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve are not assigned to a specific command, cannot be promoted, cannot issue binding orders, do not meet fitness maintenance standards, and cannot not serve or refer to charges before courts martial.
Tatel cited a specific example in the Covid-19 vaccine requirements, which are mandatory for all active and reserve Marine Corps members, but not for Marine Corps Reserve members of the Fleet.
“A recall order therefore functions as a gateway to military status,” he wrote. “The possibility of such an order certainly means that the military status of the Marine Corps Reserve members of the Fleet could change, but not that they are currently part of the armed forces. Before receiving such an order, they are entitled to all jury rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Warning of possible fallout from the ruling, Tatel said it allowed Korean War veterans to be court-martialed for shoplifting a newspaper from a supermarket. He also cites the possible court martial of retired generals and admirals who have spoken out against former President Donald Trump and some who have spoken out against President Joe Biden.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned of the dangers of expanding court martial jurisdiction,” Tatel wrote. “’Every extension of military jurisdiction is an encroachment on the jurisdiction of civilian courts and, more importantly, acts as a denial of the right to a jury trial and other valuable constitutional protections.’ As a result of today’s decision, millions of Americans lost one of those constitutional rights. »
Read the Top 8
Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day’s best stories straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.