Terms of office for general court-martial and court of criminal appeals judges

Readers of Global Military Justice Reform who are concerned with judicial independence may be interested in consulting the Reference Materials on Terms of Office for General Court-Martial and Court of Criminal Appeals Judges (Jan. 9, 2026). These can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

The Editor's Introduction, Summary and Recommendations:

These Reference Materials on Terms of Office for General Court-Martial and Court of Criminal Appeals Judges have been assembled for the use of military and civilian legal scholars; practitioners and judges in courts-martial and on appellate or collateral review; the Judge Advocates General; the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice; the Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense; the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services; and the media.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), each branch of the U.S. armed forces was asked for all agency records “that state the specific start- and end-date for the judicial term of office” of each current general court-martial and service Court of Criminal Appeals judge, including both regular and reserve component officers. The responses are reproduced in these materials. Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard records were obtained in 2025-26 only after complaints were filed in federal district court. Because the Navy reported in 2025 that there were no records responsive to the FOIA request, it was not included in the litigation. No armed force produced documents from any judge’s official military personnel file. The Air Force’s response does not provide any information about end-dates. In addition, the one-page table attached as “Judges Names and Tour Dates” provides only the month and year of start-dates, rather than the specific initial day.

The service regulations and sparse (and in some respects nonresponsive) records obtained depict a trial and appellate judicial system that is neither uniform nor in compliance with the “term” requirement of Rule for Courts-Martial 502(c)(2). The word “term” connotes a defined period of time that is known in advance, rather than a floor with no fixed end-date. 

Additional issues arise in connection with the use of reserve component judge advocates as trial and appellate judges (i.e., how does a “term” function when the officer’s call to duty is episodic) and, in the case of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, the civilian judges who seem to have entirely undefined tenure. 

Service rules shed no light on when judicial terms begin and end. In addition, they include escape clauses that undermine their obvious purpose. In the case of the Coast Guard, the rules improperly permit judges to have terms shorter than the minimum where the officer wishes to try out the assignment.

Remedial action should be taken to correct the services’ violations of R.C.M. 502(c)(2) and ensure uniformity across service lines going forward. There is no plausible basis for inter-service disparities, given the uniformity principle set forth in Article 36(b), UCMJ. Compliance with the R.C.M. will foster public confidence in the administration of military justice by fully and finally embracing the central traditional tool for protecting judicial independence.

The President should clarify the Manual to ensure service compliance and uniformity. Consideration could usefully be given as well to increasing the mandatory minimum to the eight-year terms afforded to full-time federal magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 631(e).

Feel free to share these materials. Information concerning pertinent litigation, regulatory changes, or legislative activity will be appreciated and can be sent to me at eugene.fidell@yale.edu.