For all the debate over the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system, one of the few points of consensus is that the justices should have the last word when criminal defendants challenge their convictions or sentences on constitutional grounds.
Every defendant before an American criminal court today has a right to ask the highest court in the land to review his case — except members of the military. Every year, more than 1,000 are convicted of crimes in the military justice system. But because of a 1983 law, the Supreme Court cannot review most court-martial convictions — even in cases in which the defendant faces up to life in prison and has serious constitutional objections to his trial or sentence. Congress must close that gap and stop treating those who volunteer to serve this country like second-class citizens.
For much of American history, military justice was treated as an internal concern of the executive branch, with civilian courts playing almost no role. That changed after World War II, when Congress recognized the need for both greater fairness within the military justice system and better supervision from outside. To that end, Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice created a framework for appellate review of courts-martial with a special court of civilian judges — the Court of Military Appeals — to sit as a de facto “Supreme Court of the military.”
What followed has been described as “the civilianization of military justice.” Whether by rule, statute or judicial decision, more and more procedural protections were added to the military justice system, until it increasingly began to resemble the civilian one.
While all of this was going on, the Supreme Court was in the midst of a revolution in its own jurisprudence, recognizing a constitutional right on the part even of indigent criminal defendants to pursue appeals of their convictions and sentences, and invigorating a raft of new substantive constitutional protections that could be invoked in such appeals. Finally, in 1983, Congress tied these two threads together, giving the Supreme Court direct appellate jurisdiction, for the first time, over the military justice system.
But Congress limited the Supreme Court’s power over courts-martial to those cases that had been heard by the Court of Military Appeals — which, like the Supreme Court, generally has the power to pick and choose which cases it hears. Last year, for example, that court (now known as the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) heard arguments and handed down opinions in just 35 of the 360 petitions for review that it received.
If it were clear that the military appeals court agreed to hear every case that might potentially be worthy of the Supreme Court’s review, that would be one thing. But a 2016 study by a military lawyer found that most of what the court did was to correct case-specific errors that don’t broadly affect the military justice system, while denying review to cases that could. Earlier this month, the military appeals court turned away an Army staff sergeant’s request to summarily affirm his conviction (rather than deny review) so he could take his case to the Supreme Court. His case turned on whether his lack of access to potentially exculpatory evidence would require a new trial, a question that has divided the federal courts of appeals.
Worse still, the government routinely takes the position that the Supreme Court can review only the specific issues the military appeals court decides, and not the entire case it hears. Last month, for example, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging whether the Constitution allows the military to court-martial military retirees for offenses committed after leaving active duty. The government had argued that, even though the military appeals court had agreed to hear the case, the Supreme Court could not review it because the military court had not agreed to consider that specific issue.
The result of these developments is that only a tiny minority of service members convicted by court-martial are entitled to appeal their conviction to the Supreme Court. In that regard, service members are not only treated worse than every other criminal defendant in state and federal courts, they’re also treated worse than the noncitizen enemy combatants being tried at Guantánamo. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2009, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, and his fellow military commission defendants have a statutory right to appeal any conviction not just to the civilian courts, but ultimately to seek review by the justices themselves.
Congress’s principal reason for limiting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the military appeals court in 1983 is anachronistic. At the time, the Supreme Court was hearing well over 150 cases a year, and the Reagan administration (which proposed the legislation) was worried that unlimited appeals from the military justice system would flood the justices’ already overcrowded docket. But in 1988, Congress greatly reduced the number of appeals that the Supreme Court automatically had to hear, and the court’s docket has declined in turn. Last year, for example, the justices heard oral argument in only 63 cases.
Even if treating service members on a par with other federal and state criminal defendants led to a small increase in the number of appeals the Supreme Court receives, it is hard to imagine that would have any measurable impact on the total number of cases the court hears. And regardless, court-martialed military personnel should have the same opportunity to appeal their cases as civilian criminal defendants when it comes to access to our highest court.
For the first time in 21 years, the Supreme Court last term heard a direct appeal by a service member. It used that case as an opportunity to reiterate that it has the constitutional authority to hear direct appeals from the military justice system largely because “the non-Article III court-martial system stands on much the same footing as territorial and D.C. courts.” The Supreme Court’s inability to hear most cases coming out of that system is a glaring exception, one that is obviously unfair to service members, and one that Congress should eliminate.
Eugene R. Fidell is a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Stephen I. Vladeck is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: email@example.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
小鱼儿马报资料“【快】【点】，【再】【不】【过】【来】，【以】【后】【都】【不】【给】【你】【亲】【了】。” 【那】【低】【沉】【冷】【冽】【的】【声】【线】，【乍】【一】【听】【似】【乎】【很】【不】【情】【愿】【的】【样】【子】。 【这】【也】【让】【阿】【盈】【愈】【发】【笃】【定】，【其】【实】【霍】【骁】【没】【那】【么】【喜】【欢】【顾】【倾】【颜】【了】！ 【顾】【倾】【颜】：“……” 【怎】【么】【还】【带】【篡】【改】【剧】【本】【的】？ 【他】【们】【不】【是】【渣】【男】【与】【弃】【妇】【的】【虐】【恋】【之】【情】【吗】？ 【勉】【勉】【强】【强】、【为】【为】【难】【难】【地】【踮】【起】【脚】【尖】，【敷】【衍】【了】【事】【的】【在】【霍】【骁】【下】【巴】【啾】
**【远】【拖】【了】【椅】【子】【在】【床】【边】【坐】【下】，【打】【开】【医】【药】【箱】【取】【出】【听】【诊】【器】，【温】【和】【地】【道】：“【我】【都】【来】【了】，【你】【总】【不】【会】【还】【赶】【我】【走】【吧】？【某】【人】【会】【把】【罪】【过】【算】【在】【我】【头】【上】【的】。” “……”【女】【人】【没】【说】【话】，【眼】【眸】【巴】【巴】【地】【看】【了】【眼】【宋】【瑾】【年】。 **【远】【听】【诊】【器】【都】【戴】【上】【了】，【另】【一】【边】【探】【向】【她】【胸】【前】，【可】【不】【知】【为】【何】，【安】【亦】【茜】【扭】【扭】【捏】【捏】【地】【不】【肯】【松】【开】【被】【子】，【也】【不】【肯】【放】【下】【手】。 【宋】【瑾】
11【月】4【日】。 【晴】。 【南】【方】【的】【晚】【秋】【空】【气】【中】【总】【是】【飘】【荡】【着】【似】【有】【似】【无】【的】【桂】【花】【香】。 【叶】【之】【秋】【醒】【来】【时】【已】【是】【深】【夜】，【她】【摸】【索】【着】【从】【床】【上】【坐】【了】【起】【来】，【手】【心】【里】【一】【片】【冰】【凉】，【身】【下】【的】【床】【垫】【更】【是】【坚】【硬】【异】【常】。 【朦】【朦】【胧】【胧】【中】【她】【感】【觉】【自】【己】【现】【在】【不】【像】【是】【在】【医】【院】。 【只】【是】【片】【刻】，【她】【感】【受】【到】【了】【天】【地】【之】【间】【的】【变】【化】，【大】【量】【灵】【气】【蜂】【拥】【而】【至】。 【天】【灵】【体】？ 小鱼儿马报资料【身】【为】【一】【地】【领】【主】【和】【执】【政】【官】，【郑】【杰】【和】【司】【徒】【雅】【躲】【在】【一】【旁】【偷】【偷】【听】【着】【食】【客】【们】【的】【点】【评】，【司】【徒】【雅】【还】【偷】【偷】【咽】【了】【口】【口】【水】。 “【你】【想】【吃】【吗】？【我】【给】【你】【买】【一】【块】？” “【咳】……【我】【们】【是】【来】【考】【察】【的】，【不】【是】【来】【吃】【东】【西】【的】。” “【不】【能】【实】【际】【买】【来】【尝】【尝】【吗】？” “【也】【不】【是】……” 【闻】【到】【糕】【点】【的】【香】【味】，【司】【徒】【雅】【的】【决】【心】【瞬】【间】【动】【摇】【了】。 【不】【过】【男】【人】【们】【付】【账】
【西】【门】【紫】【妍】【看】【了】【看】【立】【刻】【跑】【过】【去】，【先】【跑】【总】【比】【被】【抓】【起】【来】【强】【多】【了】【吧】，【起】【码】【两】【个】【人】【不】【用】【全】【部】【都】【在】【里】【面】【等】【着】。 【牢】【房】…… 【孙】【明】【是】【先】【被】【人】【带】【过】【来】【的】，【关】【在】【这】【暗】【无】【天】【日】【的】【地】【牢】【中】，【生】【无】【可】【恋】。 “【大】【哥】，【大】【哥】，【跟】【我】【一】【起】【来】【的】【那】【个】【女】【的】【呢】？”【孙】【明】【拦】【住】【一】【个】【阴】【兵】【问】。 “【人】【家】【就】【是】【普】【普】【通】【通】【来】【投】【胎】【的】，【现】【在】【自】【然】【是】【去】【投】【胎】【去】【了】。
【第】【三】【百】【一】【十】【七】【章】 【天】【蒙】【蒙】【亮】，【张】【小】【茹】【就】【被】【自】【己】【的】【疯】【师】【父】【从】【床】【上】【拽】【起】【来】。 【太】【久】【没】【这】【么】【早】【起】【过】【的】【张】【小】【茹】【一】【时】【间】【蒙】【在】【原】【地】，【呆】【滞】【的】【坐】【在】【床】【上】，【双】【眼】【迷】【离】【的】【看】【着】【前】【方】。 “【蠢】【丫】【头】，【起】【来】【练】【功】【了】。” 【黑】【山】【妖】【伸】【手】【弹】【了】【张】【小】【茹】【脸】【颊】【一】【下】，【在】【她】【脸】【上】【留】【下】【一】【个】【红】【红】【的】【印】【子】。 【看】【着】【白】【皙】【的】【皮】【肤】【上】【一】【个】【乍】【眼】【的】【红】【印】，【黑】【山】
【金】【武】【朝】【原】【本】【是】【漠】【北】【出】【名】【的】【游】【侠】，【一】【个】【人】【独】【来】【独】【往】，【结】【交】【了】【不】【少】【漠】【北】【豪】【杰】【之】【士】，【曾】【经】【和】【北】【苍】【狼】【也】【有】【过】【交】【集】，【是】【少】【数】【被】【狼】【王】【萧】【腾】【认】【可】【的】【人】。 【就】【实】【力】【而】【言】，【金】【武】【朝】【妥】【妥】【的】【一】【流】【上】【等】【高】【手】，【体】【力】【和】【力】【量】【是】【他】【的】【强】【项】，【内】【力】【也】【十】【分】【雄】【厚】，【一】【对】【肉】【掌】【纵】【横】【漠】【北】【十】【多】【年】，【罕】【有】【敌】【手】。 【这】【次】【金】【武】【朝】【被】【漠】【北】【王】【木】【默】【然】【召】【见】，【交】【代】【了】【试】