1. In light of this @RonanFarrow story about Larry Rendall Brock, Jr., an Air Force veteran, here's a quick #thread about the complicated, confusing, and evolving state of the law regarding when the military can (and cannot) court-martial retired servicemembers.

2. First, an important distinction: The military can *recall* most retirees to active duty. But that's not the same thing as whether they can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired (and before being recalled).

That's where things get complicated.
3. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorizes courts-martial for *any* offense committed by those who have retired from a "regular component" and are receiving pay, along with members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (who are effectively retirees).
4. But the UCMJ authorizes courts-martial for offenses committed by those who have retired from *reserve* components only while "receiving hospitalization from an armed force." And #SCOTUS held in 1955 that the military cannot try those who have *separated* from the armed forces.
5. So whether Brock can be tried by court-martial — under current law, anyway — for his role in Wednesday's attacks depends upon his *exact* status as of Wednesday, i.e., whether he is separated from the Air Force, retired from active duty, or retired from the reserves.

But...
6. This legal framework is being challenged. Whether the *Constitution* allows the military to court-martial *any* retired servicemember for offenses committed while retired is currently at issue in two separate lawsuits (full disclosure: I represent the retiree in both of them).
7. In Larrabee v. Braithwaite, the DC district court ruled in November that the Constitution forbids the court-martial of members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve for offenses committed after retiring from active duty:

https://t.co/ZG4X8mKlOu

That ruling may soon be appealed.
8. And in United States v. Begani, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will hear argument in March or April on both the Larrabee question *and* whether the UCMJ violates equal protection insofar as the distinction between active-duty and reservist retirees is arbitrary.
9. Thus, the existing law rests on complex distinctions *and* there's ongoing litigation that could significantly narrow—if not altogether eliminate—the circumstances in which *any* retired servicemembers can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired.

/end

More from Government

I am going to take the context for this thread from this piece by my good brother @mabziz in 2018-3 years ago. One thing I am so perturbed about is the response of our Attorney General's office to issues of state security. I have no personal grouse against @MalamiSan, but


2. I do have a professional grouse against him. I feel he is not alive to his duties. I feel that he is also not empowering his Director of Public Prosecutions or his Solicitor General. There is clearly a lot that befuddles me and this is because I am a seasoned lawyer and can't/

3. understand why law is not being used as the instrument it was designed for-to enforce law and order. Let us take the case of Nnamdi Kanu-this man was arraigned in Nigeria on a charge of treason/treasonable felony-he was on bail & he jumped bail. Why has he not been extradited?

4. Is it that Kanu is somehow bigger than Nigeria? What has happened to his surety who failed to produce him? Who is prosecuting him? Our Federal Ministry of Justice? Should Malami not explain to Nigeria why Nnamdi Kanu is still taunting Nigeria daily & still actively destroying/

5. our unity everyday. He is putting the lives of many people at risk and stoking ethnic dissent easily. The Fulani herdsmen dilemma, the burning of Lagos State and his coordination of same on phone-in radio channels, his videos are all stoking a Yoruba/Igbo carnage. Same with/

You May Also Like