Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel legislation

Last updated

Since 2005, federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress, 110th Congress, 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to amend Title 28 United States Code section 1259 to allow members of the United States Armed Forces to appeal court-martial convictions when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denies a petition for grant of review or extraordinary relief. In the 112th Congress the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, H.R. 3133 was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 1664 was introduced in the Senate. Both bills are currently pending.[ needs update ]

Contents

Controversy over Supreme Court access

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court by the United States Constitution in 1789, Congress has not allowed service members direct appeal to the nation’s highest federal court should the service member be convicted by courts-martial.[ citation needed ] In 1950 Congress created the modern military justice system by enacting, in 1951, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In 1984 Congress passed the Military Justice Act of 1983, that gave service members limited access to the Supreme Court. [1] Under existing law, Title 28 United States Code section 1259, a service member may appeal to the Supreme Court in death penalty cases or if review is granted by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) - which happens about twenty percent of the time. [2] Also, the government can appeal any ruling in which the service member prevails by having the individual service judge advocate general certify an issue for appeal. [1]

CAAF, as initially established in 1951 (known then as "Court of Military Appeals") was the final authority on cases arising under the military justice system, except for a limited number of cases considered by the Supreme Court under collateral proceedings, such as through writs of habeas corpus.

In March 2004, Norbert Basil MacLean III, a former United States Navy cryptologist, began to petition Congress to permit all court-martialed service members access to the Supreme Court. [3] Under MacLean's proposal, which Rep Davis (D-Calif.) and Senator Feinstein (D-Calif.) adapted as introduced bills in the House of Representatives and Senate, service members would be able to access the nation's highest court if CAAF denied a grant of review or relief in extraordinary writ and writ-appeal cases. [3] [4]

An August 2006 report issued by the American Bar Association (ABA) showed that ninety percent of all court-martialed service members whose cases were eligible for review by the court could not have Supreme Court review because the court had either denied a grant of a petition for review or denied extraordinary relief. [5] The ABA called on Congress in 2006 to change the law and permit all court-martialed service members the right of review in the high court.

109th Congress

On April 23, 2004, the House Armed Services Committee sent a bipartisan letter, written by Reps. Davis (D-Calif.) and John Michael McHugh (R-NY), to The Pentagon asking for feedback on MacLean's proposal. [6] Then-Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel J. Dell'Orto wrote to lawmakers opposing MacLean's proposal of Supreme Court access for service members. According to the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Dell'Orto stated that changing the law and giving service members greater Supreme Court access would only serve to burden the nation's highest court. [6] Rep. Davis first introduced the Equal Justice for Our Military Act on March 17, 2005, in the 109th Congress. [7] After its introduction the bill was opposed by the Bush administration through then-Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II. Haynes wrote to Congress in opposition stating "there is no apparent justification to modify the current review process, thereby increasing the burden upon the Supreme Court and counsel to address the myriad of matters that would be encountered with expanded certiorari jurisdiction." [8] The bill failed in the 109th Congress.

At the behest of MacLean, Legislative Research Inc. ("LRI"), based in California, developed two decades of military justice statistics to present to Congress. LRI completed its study in March 2006. [9] In August 2006, the American Bar Association ("ABA") issued a report and unanimously passed a resolution urging Congress to correct the law and permit U.S. armed forces members equal access to the Supreme Court. [5] The ABA report references military justice statistics compiled as a direct result of MacLean's work on this issue noting that: "CAAF denies petitions for grant of review and petitions for relief far more often than it grants them. While there is significant variation from year to year, in 2004-05, petitions for review were denied in 78.3 percent (581) of the cases and granted in 19.54 percent (145) of the cases. Petitions for grants of extraordinary relief were denied in 70.45 percent (31) of the cases and granted in 4.55 percent (2) of the cases. Equally sobering, the statistical compilation reveals that during the same time-period, there were 7,564 court-martial convictions and only 799 petitions for grant of review granted by CAAF." [5]

110th Congress

Reps. Susan A. Davis, (D-Calif.) and Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) of the House Armed Services Committee reintroduced the bill that had previously failed in the last Congress entitled the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, H.R. 3174. [10] The reintroduced bill was in broader form and included not only denials for extraordinary writs but also petitions for direct review. It would amend 28 U.S.C. sections 1259(3) and (4) so that if the Court of Appeals denied review or relief to a service member an appeal could be taken to the Supreme Court. Six days after H.R. 3174's introduction, it received bipartisan support by Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), a U.S. Air Force Reserve veteran, who signed on as cosponsor. [11]

Senate Judiciary markup's bill and favorably reports it to full Senate

On September 17, 2007, a companion bill, identical to the House bill, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Feinstein (D-Calif.), then-Republican Arlen Specter, and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), entitled Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2007. [12] When the Senate returned from its 2008 summer recess, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, signed on as cosponsor to the bill. [13] On September 11, 2008 the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to approve S. 2052. [14] [15] The next day S. 2052 was placed on the Legislative Calendar of the Senate. [16]

House suspends rules and passes its version of bill

On September 27, 2008, the House of Representatives debated and passed, by two-thirds voice vote, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, H.R. 3174. [17] [18] Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tx.), the Ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee opposed the bill during floor debate arguing, among other things, that there were no hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. [17] It was expected that the U.S. Senate would take up the House passed H.R. 3174 during the week of December 8, 2008. However, several print media and blogs had reported opposition by at least one Republican Senator who blocked a Senate floor vote on the bill. [19] [20] [21]

111th Congress

Early in the 111th Congress two identical bills were introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to give servicemembers the same right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as civilian citizens. On January 15, 2009, Rep. Davis (D-Calif.) Chairwoman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel|Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Armed Services Committee reintroduced the bill in the 111th Congress as the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, H.R. 569. [22] H.R. 569 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Identical legislation was also introduced on January 30, 2009, when Senators Feinstein (D-Calif.), then-Republican Arlen Specter and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) reintroduced the Senate bill in the 111th Congress as the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009, S. 357. [23] [24] The language of the reintroduced bills were the same as the previous bills in 110th Congress. Both the House and Senate bills were also the same language as MacLean first proposed to Congress in 2004. [3]

In March 2009 before a joint session of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, Ira Novoselsky, the national commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America announced that JWV was making the House bill and the issue of Supreme Court access for service members a legislative priority. [25] Novoselsky asked the Veteran's Committee to weigh in on the important issue and stated that "JWV supports legislation that will restore due process and equal treatment under the law for our service members and veterans". [25]

House subcommittee hearing

On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 569. [26] Witnesses who appeared before the subcommittee included retired Army Major General John D. Alternburg, Jr., Rep. Davis, and attorney Dwight H. Sullivan. [26] Davis and Sullivan testified in support of the bill. [27] [28] Altenburg testified in opposition of the bill. [29]

On July 30, 2009, the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy held a mark up on H.R. 569 and approved the bill for full House Judiciary Committee action. [30]

House Judiciary Committee markup, favorable report issued and placed on Union Calendar

On January 27, 2010, the full House Judiciary Committee, by voice vote, favorably reported H.R. 569 to the House of Representatives. [31]

On July 14, 2010, a U.S. House of Representatives Report was filed which amended H.R. 569 and changed its name to the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010. [32] H.R. 569 was placed on the Union Calendar of the U.S. House of Representatives. [33] The House Report refers to MacLean in footnotes. One in particular states that "during the full Committee mark-up of H.R. 569, Members of the Minority charged that the bill was introduced primarily for the benefit of a single individual, former Navy Officer Norbert Basil MacLean III. In fact, a number of individuals and organizations have taken note of the inherent injustice of the current law. Additionally, it should be pointed out that H.R. 569 applies only to courts-martial that were initiated on or after the effective date of the Act, which thereby forecloses any personal benefit to Mr. MacLean, whose court-martial was concluded well before this legislation was introduced." [32]

112th Congress

The Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011 has been introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3133 and in the Senate as S. 1664. Currently, no action has been taken on either bill.

Congressional Research Service reports

On October 6, 2008, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report entitled "Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Cases." [34] The CRS report noted that under existing law the CAAF "functions as a gatekeeper for military appellants' access to Supreme Court review." [34] The report further noted that "if the CAAF denies an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court will typically lack the authority to review the decision. In contrast, criminal appellants in Article III courts have an automatic right of appeal to federal courts of appeals and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for review." [34] On January 30, 2009, the CRS issued a second report also entitled "Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Case." This CRS report discusses HR 569 in the 111th Congress. [35]

Congressional Budget Office costings

The United States Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a cost estimate on October 22, 2008, regarding the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2007, S.2052, 110th Congress. The CBO estimated costs to be approximately $1 million a year if S.2052 was enacted which would include the workload of Department of Defense attorneys and Supreme Court clerks. [36] Further it estimates a possible additional $1 million to $2 million in appropriated funds for the Department of Defense to defend a case in the Supreme Court if a servicemember petitioned the high court for a writ of certiorari. [36] However, the CBO determined that by enacting S.2052 there would be no direct spending and it would impose no costs on local, state or tribal governments. [36]

On October 27, 2008, the Press-Enterprise noted in an article that the cost to the average family if S.2052 was enacted would be $0.16. [37] On the topic of costs related to an increase in workload, the American Bar Association stated in a letter to House leaders that "to those that argue that permitting equal access to the courts will create workload problems, we emphatically respond that nothing is more important than the provision of fundamental due process to our service members." [38]

On June 11, 2009, Washington, DC attorney Dwight H. Sullivan testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee that the costs, should HR 569 (111th Congress) be passed, would be approximately $1,000 per case. [28]

On February 2, 2010, the CBO issued a cost estimate on HR 569. [39] The CBO's estimate indicates that "Based on information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Supreme Court, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would increase the workload of DoD attorneys and Supreme Court clerks and would cost less than $1 million each year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. We expect that the bill would make several hundred service members eligible to file petitions each year, but that only a small portion of those individuals would pursue review by the Supreme Court (based on the experience of individuals whose cases currently qualify for Supreme Court review). CBO cannot predict whether the Supreme Court would grant review of any particular petition. If the Supreme Court agreed to review any petitions, DoD would probably spend no more than $1 million in any year from appropriated funds to defend those cases. (Any such amounts would depend on the number and complexity of such cases.) Enacting H.R. 569 would not affect direct spending or revenues." [39] The February 2010 estimate was considerably less in estimated costs compared to the previous CBO estimate in 2008.

What others have said about the legislation

The major opponents and proponents of the legislation are:

Major opponents to the legislation

The following are opponents to the legislation and have either testified before Congress or sent letters in opposition which are part of the Congressional record:

William J. Haynes II

In 2002 the Army Times editorial board was critical of the Department of Defense (DoD) trying to prevent servicemembers from accessing the federal courts regarding military personnel issues. [40] William J. Haynes II had submitted various proposals to Congress, in the DoD 2002 budget proposal, to not allow service members access to the federal courts to challenge military personnel issues such as promotions, retention actions, separations, retirement, enlistments and re-enlistments.

A front page article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported that Haynes opposed giving members of the U.S. Armed Forces access to the Supreme Court of the United States if they are court-martialed. In February 2006, he wrote letters to Congress opposing the Equal Justice for Our Military Act, which was pending in the 109th Congress. Haynes opined that "there is no apparent justification to modify the current review process, thereby increasing the burden upon the Supreme Court and counsel to address the myriad of matters that would be encountered with expanded certiorari jurisdiction." [41] The next month, in March 2006, Navy veteran Norbert Basil MacLean III lobbied lawmakers with twenty-two years of military justice statistics showing that over 80 percent of all court-martialed service members are shut out of seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. [42] In August 2006, the American Bar Association issued a report and passed a resolution urging Congress to give servicemembers Supreme Court access. [5]

In July 2007 Representative Susan A. Davis (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, HR.3174. And in September 2007 Senators Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter introduced bipartisan identical legislation entitled the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2007, S.2052 in the Senate. On September 27, 2008, during floor debate on HR 3174 in the U.S. House of Representatives Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas) cited a February 6, 2006, Haynes letter in support of his opposition to servicemembers having equal access to the U.S. Supreme Court. [17] After debate the House passed HR 3174 by voice vote of a two-thirds majority. [17]

Lamar Smith

On September 27, 2008, Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-Texas) in a House floor debate on the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, HR 3174, opposed granting access to the Supreme Court of the United States to members of the U.S. Armed Forces. [17] Smith had argued, among other things, that there had been no hearings in the House Judiciary Committee on the subject and for this and other reasons he opposed the legislation being considered on the House suspension calendar. [17] In his floor debate, Smith cited a February 6, 2006, letter of former Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, who also opposed access of servicemembers to the Supreme Court. HR 3174 subsequently passed in the House by a two-thirds voice vote. [17]

Proponents of the legislation

The following are proponents to the legislation and have either testified before Congress or sent letters in support which are part of the Congressional record:

Norbert Basil MacLean III

After MacLean was precluded from Supreme Court access by operation of 28 U.S.C. 1259(4), and learning that other service members were also, he began his advocacy to change the law. [4] [43] [44] MacLean first started to petition Members of the 108th Congress in March 2004 to amend the law and permit service members access to the Supreme Court. [3] MacLean's proposal, which was included in the HASC letter to the Defense Department, was simple: to permit a petition for writ of certiorari to be filed by any member of the U.S. Armed Forces who was denied review or relief by the CAAF. This concept would bring the Armed Forces court in line with other federal Courts of Appeal concerning Supreme Court review of federal criminal convictions. MacLean's proposal would afford service members full procedural due process protections in appellate review of courts-martial to the Supreme Court.

MacLean's commentary calling on Congress to take action to allow service members court access

The Los Angeles Daily Journal, the San Francisco Daily Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Legal Times published MacLean's commentary calling upon Congress to take action on pending bills allowing for service members to access the Supreme Court.

DatePublicationTitle
2009-03-20 Los Angeles Daily Journal and San Francisco Daily Journal "Case Highlights Need for Action on Service Members' Court Access"
2008-09-10 Los Angeles Times "Separate and unequal military justice"
2008-06-09 Legal Times "Who Hears the Troops?"
Criticism of MacLean's position

U.S. Department of Defense officials in the George W. Bush administration were critical of MacLean's proposal to Congress. Department of Defense Principal Deputy General Counsel Daniel J. Dell'Orto indicated opposition to the issue of access to the Supreme Court for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. [45] The House Armed Services Committee wrote a letter to the Defense Department attaching correspondence from MacLean on the inequity. Dell'Orto wrote back to the Armed Services committee criticizing MacLean's proposal for fear it would "increase the burden upon the Supreme Court." [6] In 2006 then-Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II was critical of MacLean's proposal and indicated that the Bush administration opposes giving servicemembers equal access to the Supreme Court. In February 2006 Haynes opined to Congress that "there is no apparent justification to modify the current review process, thereby increasing the burden upon the Supreme Court and counsel to address the myriad of matters that would be encountered with expanded certiorari jurisdiction." [8]

After the House of Representatives passed the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, Robert E. Reed, an associate general counsel at the Department of Defense in the George W. Bush administration told The New York Times the legislation would increase the burdens on the Supreme Court and Defense Department lawyers, adding that supporters were not taking a “panoramic view.” [46] “A lot of those supporters are only looking at this as a motherhood, apple pie sort of issue,” he said. “There’s a logic and a rationale to this. We’re not just trying to be mean and difficult for the defendants.” [46] Reed's comment to The New York Times may have been in response to MacLean's 2007 comment to the San Diego Union Tribune when he (MacLean) said "I think there is a high likelihood that this bill will pass because voting against it would be like voting against Mom and warm apple pie.” [43] Finally, Reed told The New York Times “It’s the same old people with the same old arguments and the same propositions.” [46]

Praise of MacLean's position

Despite critics in the George W. Bush administration, in 2005, the press secretary for Rep. Davis said in the Los Angeles Daily Journal that after considering MacLean's arguments, Davis believes both prosecution and defense should have equal opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court. "He brought up a very important issue of equality under the law," Aaron Hunter, press secretary said. [6]

The American Bar Association mentioned MacLean in its resolution and report to Congress in 2006 which urged the law be changed to permit members of the U.S. Armed Forces to have equal access to the Supreme Court. The ABA report references MacLean's work on military justice statistics. [5]

During a 5 June 2009 House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on H.R. 569 (111th Congress), Rep. Davis made reference to MacLean in her testimony as "a tireless champion for this issue and other military justice reform on behalf of the service members and veterans that fall under the jurisdiction of those [military courts of appeal]." [27]

The following organizations support service members' access to the Supreme Court:

Three retired chief judges of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces support the proposed legislation:

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1964</span> Landmark U.S. civil rights and labor law

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span>

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, a city within a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. The federal government, sometimes simply referred to as Washington, is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States House Committee on the Judiciary</span> Standing committee of the United States House of Representatives

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, also called the House Judiciary Committee, is a standing committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is charged with overseeing the administration of justice within the federal courts, federal administrative agencies, and federal law enforcement entities. The Judiciary Committee is often involved in the impeachment process against federal officials. Because of the legal nature of its oversight, committee members usually have a legal background, but this is not required.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary Act of 1789</span> 1789 United States law establishing the federal court system

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span> Overview of the separation of powers under the United States Constitution

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces</span> Federal tribunal for appeal of lower military courts

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is an Article I court that exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States Armed Forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The court reviews decisions from the intermediate appellate courts of the services: the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and the collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937</span> 1937 proposed U.S. law giving the President the power to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the "court-packing plan", was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional. The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the name for each of a series of United States federal laws specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense. The first NDAA was passed in 1961. The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill is the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee and determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes recommended funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent. The appropriations bill provides funds.

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz is an American constitutional law scholar, professor, and Broadway producer. He writes and teaches in the fields of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and federal jurisdiction. He is the son of billionaire investor and philanthropist Robert Rosenkranz.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military Commissions Act of 2006</span> Former United States law

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. The Act's stated purpose was "to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whistleblower Protection Act</span> US law regarding protection of federal whistleblowers

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

A bill, provisionally called the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S. 185, passed the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, June 7, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Rehnquist</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 to 2005

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American attorney and jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years, first as an associate justice from 1972 to 1986 and then as the 16th chief justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a staunch conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the Court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Jamaica</span>

The judiciary of Jamaica is based on the judiciary of the United Kingdom. The courts are organized at four levels, with additional provision for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Court of Appeal is the highest appellate court. The Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all cases, and sits as the Circuit Court to try criminal cases. The Parish Court in each parish hears both criminal and civil cases, excluding grave offences. The Petty Sessions are held under Justices of the Peace, with power to hear minor crimes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oliver Ellsworth</span> Chief justice of the United States from 1796 to 1800

Oliver Ellsworth was a Founding Father of the United States, attorney, jurist, politician, and diplomat. Ellsworth was a framer of the United States Constitution, United States senator from Connecticut, and the third chief justice of the United States. Additionally, he received 11 electoral votes in the 1796 presidential election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Allison H. Eid</span> American judge (born 1965)

Allison Lynn Hartwell Eid is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. She previously served as an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a United States federal law which among other things specifies the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. The bill passed the U.S. House on December 14, 2011, the U.S. Senate on December 15, 2011, and was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011, by President Barack Obama.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subject to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.

References

  1. 1 2 Elsea, Jennifer K., Supreme Court Review of Decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Under Writs of Certiorari Archived 2009-03-20 at the Wayback Machine , Congressional Research Service, February 27, 2006
  2. ↑ Barry, Kevin, A Face Lift (And Much More) For An Aging Beauty: The Cox Commission Recommendations To Rejuvenate The Uniform Code Of Military Justice Archived 2009-03-20 at the Wayback Machine , 2002 L. Rev. M.S.U. – D.C.L. 57 (2002)
  3. 1 2 3 4 McHugh, John; Davis, Susan, House Armed Services Committee letter to Department of Defense General Counsel William J. Haynes II, April 23, 2004
  4. 1 2 Ernde, Laura, "Senate OKs Review of Courts-Martial", Los Angeles Daily Journal, September 12, 2008, front page
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 American Bar Association Resolution 116, adopted by ABA House of Delegates on August 7–8, 2006
  6. 1 2 3 4 Walbert, Claude, "Bill Would Let Court-Martialed Appeal to Justices", Los Angeles Daily Journal, March 21, 2005, front page
  7. ↑ Equal Justice for Our Military Act Archived 2016-01-25 at the Wayback Machine , H.R. 1364 introduced in the 109th Congress (March 17, 2005)
  8. 1 2 Ernde, Laura, "Momentum Grows for Opening High Court to Servicemembers", Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 17, 2007, front page
  9. ↑ Legislative Research Incorporated, "The Military Justice System: 1983-84 Through 2004-05: Twenty-two Years of Key Statistical Findings" (March 30, 2006) Preface by Norbert Basil MacLean III, presented to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Judiciary Committees of the 109th Congress and to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
  10. ↑ Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007, H.R. 3174 introduced in 110th Congress-House (July 25, 2007)
  11. ↑ Congressional Record - House (Daily Digest), page H9277 (July 31, 2007)
  12. ↑ Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2007, S. 2052 introduced in 110th Congress-Senate (September 17, 2007)
  13. ↑ U.S. Congress. Senate (2008) Additional Cosponsors Congressional Record - Senate S8132 (September 8, 2008)
  14. ↑ U.S. Congress. Senate (2008) Reports of Committees Congressional Record - Senate S8479 (September 12, 2008)
  15. ↑ Feinstein, Dianne, Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Feinstein Legislation, Press Release, September 11, 2008
  16. ↑ U.S. Senate Calendar of 110th Congress, General Orders, Order No. 959, page 102
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 U.S. Congress. House (2008) Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007 Congressional Record - House H10623-24 (September 27, 2008)
  18. ↑ Davis, Susan, House Passes Susan Davis Equal Justice for Our Military Act, Press Release, September 27, 2008 (retrieved on September 28, 2008)
  19. ↑ Slater, Dan, "Supreme Court Access for Military Members Convicted of Crimes?", The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, September 30, 2008 (retrieved October 12, 2008)
  20. ↑ Maze, Rick, "Appeal rights bill may die in Senate", Navy Times, September 30, 2008 (retrieved October 12, 2008)
  21. ↑ Palazzolo, Joe, "Service Members One Step Closer to SCOTUS Access", The Blog of Legal Times, September 30, 2008 (retrieved October 12, 2008)
  22. ↑ "U.S. Congress. House (2009) Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009 Congressional Record - House H380 (January 15, 2009)". Archived from the original on December 7, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2010.
  23. ↑ "U.S. Congress. Senate (2009) Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009 Congressional Record - Senate S1124 (January 30, 2009)". Archived from the original on October 18, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2010.
  24. ↑ Feinstein, Dianne, Feinstein Introduces Legislation to Give Armed Forces Personnel the Same Due-Process Appeal Rights as Civilians, Press Release, January 30, 2009
  25. 1 2 3 Novoselsky, Ira, Legislative Priorities of the Jewish War Veterans of the USA Archived 2011-07-19 at the Wayback Machine , Before Joint Session of Senate and House Veterans' Affairs Committees (111th Congress - 1st Session), March 5, 2009, page 20
  26. 1 2 Hearing information on H.R. 569, House Judiciary Committee Archived 2010-07-07 at the Wayback Machine (retrieved June 3, 2009)
  27. 1 2 "Testimony of Hon. Susan A. Davis (D-Calif.), Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 2009" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2010.
  28. 1 2 "Testimony of Dwight H. Sullivan, Attorney, Washington, DC, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 2009" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2010. Retrieved August 21, 2010.
  29. ↑ "Testimony of Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr., U.S. Army, Retired, Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 11, 2009" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2010. Retrieved September 2, 2010.
  30. ↑ Congressional Record - Daily Digest, July 30, 2009, page D953
  31. ↑ Transcript of Markup on Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, H.R. 569 Archived 2010-07-07 at the Wayback Machine (January 27, 2010)
  32. 1 2 Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010, U.S. House of Representatives Report 111-547 (July 14, 2010)
  33. ↑ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h569rh.txt.pdf Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010
  34. 1 2 3 Henning, Anna C., "Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Cases" Archived 2011-07-19 at the Wayback Machine , Congressional Research Service, October 6, 2008
  35. ↑ Henning, Anna C.,"Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Cases" Archived 2012-03-02 at the Wayback Machine , Congressional Research Service, January 30, 2009
  36. 1 2 3 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate - S.2052 Equal Justice for Our Military Act, October 22, 2008 (retrieved October 28, 2008)
  37. ↑ Veterans' Benefits on the March, Press Enterprise, October 27, 2008
  38. ↑ American Bar Association letter to House Leaders dated September 19, 2008
  39. 1 2 Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate - H.R. 569 Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, February 2, 2010 (retrieved March 22, 2010)
  40. ↑ EDITORIAL: Equal rights for soldiers, Army Times, 2002
  41. ↑ "Momentum Grows for Opening High Court to Servicemembers" by Laura Ernde, Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 17, 2007, front page
  42. ↑ Legislative Research Incorporated, "The Military Justice System: 1983-84 Through 2004-05: Twenty-two Years of Key Statistical Findings" [ dead link ] (March 30, 2006) Preface by Norbert Basil MacLean III, presented to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Judiciary Committees of the 109th Congress and to the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
  43. 1 2 Rogers, Rick, "Bill Offers Troops Way to Appeal", San Diego Union Tribune, July 26, 2007
  44. ↑ Funk, Deborah, "Bill would let more military defendants appeal to high court", Army Times, April 11, 2005
  45. ↑ Hearing transcript on Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, H.R. 569 (111th Congress) Archived 2011-06-11 at the Wayback Machine June 11, 2009 (Daniel J. Dell'Orto letter is at pages 68-69 of transcript) (retrieved August 28, 2010)
  46. 1 2 3 Becker, Bernie, "Military Appeals Process is Challenged", The New York Times, November 27, 2008, A30
  47. 1 2 3 Coyle, Marcia, "Military appeals lack way to top", The National Law Journal, August 18, 2008, front page
  48. ↑ Letter from Fleet Reserve Association Director Joseph L. Barnes to Senator Feinstein (July 9, 2008) Archived July 26, 2011, at the Wayback Machine retrieved on FRA website August 26, 2008
  49. ↑ U.S. Congress. House. (2007) Representative Davis of California statement on Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2007. 110th Cong. 1st sess. Congressional Record-House-Extension of Remarks E1618 (July 25, 2007)
  50. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers letter to House Judiciary Committee dated May 19, 2009 (retrieved August 19, 2010)
  51. ↑ Hynes, Casey, "A Soldier's Right to Fight", TakingBackPolitics.com, September 30, 2008 (retrieved October 12, 2008)
  52. ↑ 2005 Annual Report of Code Committee on Military Justice section 1 page 2 "Senior Judge Everett also addressed the Code Committee and encouraged consideration of . . . Supreme Court review of cases in which petitions for grant of review have been denied . . ." March 28, 2006 (retrieved on October 12, 2008)
  53. ↑ Davis, Susan, "Bill will allow service members to appeal to Supreme Court" Press Release, July 25, 2007, retrieved from Rep. Davis' website on March 25, 2008.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.