[an error occurred while processing this directive]
FindLaw: Legal Subjects: Military Law: Cases
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Military Law: Cases
- Clinton v. Goldsmith 526 U.S. 529 (1999) (Because the CAAF’s process was neither "in aid of" its strictly circumscribed jurisdiction to review court-martial findings and sentences nor "necessary" or "appropriate" in light of a servicemember’s alternative opportunities to seek relief, that court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction against dropping respondent from the Air Force rolls.)
- Goldman v. Weinberger 475 U.S. 503 (1986) (The First Amendment does not prohibit the challenged regulation from being applied to petitioner, even though its effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs. That Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices as wearing a yarmulke in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by dress regulations.)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (Held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.)
- Loving v. U.S. 517 U.S. 748 (1996) (Under the Eighth Amendment, the military capital sentencing scheme must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and must reasonably justify the imposition of a more severe sentence on the accused compared to others found guilty of murder. The President's prescription of the challenged aggravating factors did not violate the separation of powers principle.)
- Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, providing for the trial by court-martial of "all persons . . . accompanying the armed forces" of the United States in foreign countries, cannot constitutionally be applied, in capital cases, to the trial of civilian dependents accompanying members of the armed forces overseas in time of peace.)
- Schick v. Reed 419 U.S. 256 (1974) (Petitioner, sentenced to death, under Art. 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by a court-martial for murder, attacked the validity of a Presidential commutation to life imprisonment (under which petitioner had served 20 years) conditioned on petitioner's never being paroled. The conditional commutation of petitioner's death sentence was within the President's powers under Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.")
- U.S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (An ex-serviceman was arrested by military authorities on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder while he was an airman in Korea. When arrested, he had no relationship of any kind with the military. Under authority of Art. 3(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he was taken to Korea to stand trial before a court-martial. Court held he could not constitutionally be subjected to trial by court-martial.)
- U.S. v. Scheffer 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, holding that a per se exclusion of polygraph evidence offered by an accused to support his credibility violates his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. Supreme Court reversed).
- Weiss v. U.S. 510 U.S. 163 (1994) (The current method of appointing military judges does not violate the Appointments Clause, which, inter alia, requires the President to appoint "Officers of the United States" with the advice and consent of the Senate.)
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]