Institute for Constitutional Military Law v. Trump

ICML is a nonpartisan institute (NGO) that defends the constitutional rights of service members and veterans before the boards, in the courts, and in Congress. Its work rests on three pillars: research, advocacy, and litigation.

The Defense Department posts the administrative law decisions of its discharge review boards and boards for correction of military and naval records on one website, boards.law.af.mil. On October 6, 2026, the Institute tested the site’s search functionality on each of the six boards for decisions containing the word “the.” Across the six boards of the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps, and the Air Force, the search returned about 38,600 of the 286,719 published files. It did not return the other 87 percent. At the Naval Discharge Review Board the search reported 237 results for “the” and the same 237 for “discharge,” out of 35,940 files. And many of the decisions the boards post cannot be read on the screen. About one in three files, and nearly all Naval Discharge Review Board decisions, are Rich Text or Word documents, which a web browser cannot display. Clicking one does not open the decision. It downloads the file to the reader’s computer, where it must be opened in a word processor, one decision at a time. These are legal decisions of the federal government. A correction board’s correction is, by statute, except when procured by fraud, “final and conclusive on all officers of the United States.” 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(4)(A). Yet nearly four in five of the boards’ files are plain-text, Rich Text or Word files, and every file is listed only by file name and date, with no summary and no index.

Its advocacy

The Institute carries that evidence to the people who can change the law, in Congress, the military departments, and the states. Through the 50-State Initiative, it is working to repeal the state and local rules that punish veterans for an administrative discharge given without a trial. It provides model language to any legislature or agency that wants to fix its rules.

ICML v. Trump.

On November 10, 2026, the Marine Corps birthday, the Institute sued the President and the Defense Department in federal court in Springfield, Illinois, to make the military review boards’ decisions public and searchable, as Congress required.CourtU.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield DivisionCase numberNo. 3:26-cv-03388-CRL-DJQFiledNovember 10, 2026JudgeColleen R. LawlessStatusOpen

New judge of Peruvian military-police court

 Brigadier General Paola Peggy Polanco Ponce, has been sworn in as Alternate Supreme Justice of the Supreme Review Chamber of the Supreme Military-Police Court. Details here. Congratulations!

Death / disability in long-term ongoing operations led by the Indian Defence Forces cannot be excluded to refuse enhanced pension to soldiers: Indian Supreme Court

Livelaw reported the recent clarification issued by the Supreme Court of India on whether ongoing operations in Jammu and Kashmir (Operation Rakshak) and Operation Rhino (Assam) would be included under Category E(i) of a government policy which grants an enhanced form of pension, namely, War Injury Pension to soldiers who become disabled while participating in operations notified by the Government of India from time to time.

The Respondent-soldier had previously been granted War Injury Pension by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for his disability incurred while serving in a High Altitude Area in Kargil (Jammu and Kashmir) between 2002 and 2005, as part of Operation Rakshak. The Union of India challenged the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana before the Indian Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held the circumstances leading to death / disability mentioned in the policy as "not exhaustive" and rejected the Union of India's plea to discriminate between soldiers who become disabled / deceased in long-term running operations such as Operation Rakshak. A distinction sought to be drawn by the Union of India between those who become injured due to border skirmishes etc. and those who are disabled due to illnesses aggravated by operational conditions was also rejected. The said principle was also previously held by the Indian Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Saroj Devi.

The complete decision is available here.

AFT: IAF noncom has right to bail pending review of court-martial

India's Armed Forces Tribunal has ruled that a noncom convicted by court-martial may be released on bail pending action by statutory confirming authorities. Details here. Excerpt from The Tribune:

“The pendency of confirmation proceedings cannot be permitted to result in continued detention without due consideration of the applicant’s right to personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Tribunal’s Bench, comprising Justice Rajendra Menon and Lt Gen CP Mohanty, ruled.

“Merely because the process of confirmation of the findings and sentence awarded by a court martial is pending, the same cannot operate as an impediment to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Tribunal to consider suspension of the sentence and grant of bail,” the Bench said.

Observing that the applicant had already undergone detention for a period of 35 days, which is more than half of the total sentence of two months’ detention, the Bench said that the period of detention already undergone shall necessarily be taken into account while computing the total period of sentence.

“Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that this is a fit case in which the sentence of detention deserves to be suspended and the applicant granted bail, pending confirmation of the findings and sentence by the competent authority, the Bench ruled while directing that the execution of the sentence of detention shall remain suspended pending confirmation, and the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.

The Bench, however, made it clear that the suspension of sentence is confined to the punishment of detention only. Insofar as the punishment of reduction in rank is concerned, the same shall be given effect immediately upon confirmation of the findings and sentence by the competent authority, in accordance with law. There shall be no stay on the implementation of the said punishment, the Bench said.

Another civiian tried by court-martial in Uganda

Uganda stil hasn't gotten the memo. Its general court-martial has tried a civilian cab driver found wearing military clothing. Details here. African Charter jurisprudence forbids the trial of civilians by military courts.