Navada National Guard

Each (U.S.) state National Guard has some form of military justice statute. The Codes vary from state to state (some states have adopted the ABA Model Code). Enforcement can differ. For example, Delaware conducts a court-martial within the Guard, whereas West Virginia prosecutes "UCMJ" violations in civilian court.

You can find out more specifics per state at NIMJ's "State Codes."

A general review suggests many state UCMJs are out of date. There have been several major changes to the UCMJ over the last five years and the state legislatures haven't caught up.

Nevada National Guard members have fewer legal protections than civilians, most other states’ Guard members, and members of national military branches such as the Army and Air Force.

The right to demand a court-martial instead of accepting certain administrative punishments was taken out of state law in 2019 at the urging of the Nevada National Guard, just four years after it held the opposite position.

. . .

"Currently, Nevada is one of only a few states where National Guard members lack the right to demand a court-martial," Wagar said. "This lack of due process undermines the principles of justice and erodes trust in the military justice system."

 From the Reno Gazette Journal.

Most interesting is the cost estimate for adopting the right to refuse Article 15 punishment, which ranges from zero to $1.2 million for just three courts-martial.

Gray said this shows that the Nevada National Guard’s official estimate to the Legislature of three court-martials a year costing about $1.2 million does not stand up to scrutiny because it’s extremely rare for a military service member to ever request one.

Gray shared a letter he received Wednesday from Maj. Gen. David Baldwin, who has led the California National Guard since 2011. Baldwin wrote that during his more than 40 years in the Guard, he’s been involved with hundreds and possibly thousands of cases where the accused had the option to turn down a nonjudicial punishment in favor of a court-martial — and only one ever did.

We suspect (partly on our own experiences advising servicemembers) that the number of Article 15 turndowns in the active duty force is similarly few.

TT High Court ruling in Coast Guard promotion case

There's been an interesting decision in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. At issue is whether stric t seniority governs promotions in the Coast Guard, or whether merit -- here, experience -- can trump it. The decision is not yet on the court's website, but here is a detailed account from T&T Newsday. Excerpt:

In a ruling on March 28, Justice Ricky Rahim quashed the CDS’s decision not to promote Hayden De Four while ordering the Defence Force boss to consider his qualifications, experience and training within 30 days and inform him 14 days after.

The State was ordered to compensate De Four for the CDS’s unfair and irrational actions and breach of his constitutional rights. The CDS and the Attorney General were also ordered to pay De Four’s legal costs.

In his lawsuit, De Four claimed he was unfairly denied promotion to Fleet Chief Petty Officer (FCPO) in December 2022. His attorneys, Arden Williams, Don Marie Adolphe and Mariah Ramrattan, argued promotions in the TTCG were always based on seniority and, as the most senior officer, he had a legitimate expectation of advancement.

Instead, the position was given to a junior officer.

In its defence, the CDS and AG said promotions to FCPO are also determined by experience and not seniority alone. They argued that the other officer was better suited because of his training and experience in the Marine and Integrated Project Team department.

They also contended De Four was never promised a promotion and was not treated unfairly.

Executing Humphrey's Executor

Students of military justice will want to consider this paragraph from p. 53 of Judge Patricia A. Millett's dissent from today's decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Harris v. Bessent, No. 25-5037:

    Agencies are not the only entities at risk under the majority opinion’s new regime. Given the primarily adjudicatory nature of the MSPB and the NLRB, it is difficult to understand how the majority opinion’s rule does not eliminate removal restrictions on non-Article III judges, including judges of the Court of Federal Claims, the Bankruptcy Courts, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Apparently all of those adjudicators can now be fired based not on any constitutional decision by the Supreme Court or this court, but simply on the government’s application for a stay citing nothing more than the President’s inability to fire those officials as the requisite irreparable injury.

Whither Uganda's military courts?

There's a lively debate going on in Parliament over the proper legislative response to the Supreme Court of Uganda's Kabaziguruka decision. This article from NilePost summarizes the opposition's views, in contrast with those of the government.

Woke military

The Woke Military: A Question of Paternity. Here's Bruce T. Smith's lede on Real Clear Defense: "The woke military is the bastard child of a thousand fathers. Several of those 'fathers' were the ones wearing JAG badges." The author continues:

The simple truth is this: many military Judge Advocates, “JAGs,” whose clients were their respective service branches, either endorsed or failed to prevent the sixteen-year woke assault on the armed services. That’s likely why SecDef [Pete] Hegseth fired the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General in February.

Whether the failures were those of just a few woke idealogues, scaredy-cat careerists, or members of a wider-spread social justice movement, the responsibility to prevent the politicization of the military rested with the lawyers whose sworn duty it was to counsel adherence to the law.

In this essay, it is not my intention to indict the majority of hardworking, patriotic military lawyers who follow the law every day. Rather, my aim, here, is to scrutinize a small but influential minority of Judge Advocates who put ideology and politics above both the law and their duties to their respective armed services. Whether they acted actively or passively, alone or in small groups, a cadre of woke JAGs throughout the DoD may very well have been the single greatest facilitators of left-driven ideological mischief in the military.

See what you think?