American judge advocates can expect to be assigned to duty as temporary immigration judges. Honk if you think they will need a lot of training to become competent in the complex specialized field of immigration law. Honk twice if you have doubts that the armed forces have 600 spare judge advocates. New York Times story here.
Most Americans, including even many military lawyers, have never heard of the Houston Riot of 1917 and the ensuing mass Army courts-martial, leading to 110 convictions, 19 executions, and 63 life sentences. The convictions were set aside in 2023. This summer, a new book, Black Soldiers, White Laws: The Trqgedy of the 24th Infantry Division in 1917 Houston, by John A. Haymond, was published by Grove Atlantic. It's an excellent addition to the military justice bookshelf. Importantly, it not only tells the story of the mutiny (was it really a mutiny?) and the trials, but sets the stage by describing the background of race relations in the Army and in the country as a whole. The book does a good job of describing the legal arrangements in force at the time, and the author plainly benefited from the experience and professional knowledge of a range of subject matter experts.
For contemporary practitioners, numerous aspects of the proceedings are shocking. For example, there was only one defense counsel at the main trial, and he was not an attorney. The NAACP had a volunteer lawyer ready to assist, but he arrived only a few days before the trial, and the accuseds declined his assistance, reportedly because they were told that adding him at that late date would annoy the court-martial because it would have implied an insulting lack of confidence in the detailed [non-lawyer, white] defense counsel.
The case led to some improvements in American military justice, but it remains a terrible chapter in the military justice system's history.
Amendments to the Colorado Code of Military Justice, approved in June by Governor Jared S. Polis, will take effect on September 1. The bill summary can be fond here.
The Delhi High Court has directed all courts within its jurisdiction to prioritize cases invoilving military and paramilitary personnel. Details here. Excerpt:
The circular, issued by Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj on August 7, on the directions of the Chief Justice, cites provisions under the Army Act, 1950, Navy Act, 1957, and Air Force Act, 1950, which provide for special treatment in litigation involving armed forces personnel. The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, amended in 2018, also provides additional protection for serving soldiers.
The Chief Justice instructed all district and sessions courts in Delhi to ensure early hearings and expeditious disposal of civil, revenue, and criminal cases related to members of the armed forces. Further, the directive extended to cases involving paramilitary personnel, ensuring their matters are heard on priority.
* * *
Justice Surya Kant, who conceived and spearheaded the initiative, told NDTV that NALSA is coordinating with the defence department to ensure Army soldiers are given legal help and can focus on their jobs, which is critical for national security.
"Soldiers brave everything from harsh terrain to enemy fire to protect the country, and the judiciary wants to ensure it can do everything possible for them and their families. We have launched the 'Veer Parivar Sahayata Yojana 2025'. Soldiers of the Army and paramilitary forces are posted in remote areas and on the borders. Often, they can't even talk to their families on the phone and can't get leave. In such a situation, if there is a case against them or their family, they should not be deprived of anything. So, at NALSA, we decided to come up with a scheme in which they get legal aid, legal assistance, and legal advice," he said.
Ke Ben of the China University of Political Science and Law's School of Law has written this 2025 article on the country's military procuratorate for the Journal of Politics and Law. Abstract:
The China Military Procuratorate has been reshaped by two major reforms. The 2016 overhaul of the military judicial system created a vertically led, relatively independent procuratorial hierarchy. In 2018, however, the Military Discipline Inspection Commission absorbed all duty crime investigative powers, tilting the balance of legal oversight. Based on the military judicial reform experiences of various countries around the world, this article recommends three corrective steps: (1) formally affirm the procuratorate’s status as a branch of state judicial power; (2) restore dual vertical leadership under the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Central Military Commission; and (3) give the procuratorate statutory authority to supervise the Discipline Inspection Commission. These measures offer practical guidance for strengthening PLA legal supervision and supply a comparative model for global military justice reform and anti corruption efforts.
The author concludes:
From the reform experiences of military justice institutions across countries, we can observe that military power has an inherent tendency toward arbitrariness and expansion – a tendency closely tied to the operational and managerial demands faced by military organizations. Many armed forces have sought to establish judicial bodies subordinated to the military in order to control justice within the ranks. Yet in a democratic state there should be no such “state within a state.” Military judicial organs ought to serve as the last defender of justice, not as tools for disciplining service members on behalf of the command.
Comparative practice shows that carefully designing power boundaries and procedures can minimize these risks: first, insulate the chain of command from investigative and prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases, vesting decisions on whether and how to prosecute in career prosecutors subject to civilian rules; second, place military cases under the unified rules of ordinary justice and meaningful external review, at a minimum ensuring genuine final-review channels – parliamentary oversight, constitutional or supreme court scrutiny – so that military justice always operates within the visibility and accountability of the national legal order; third, retain narrowly tailored military exceptions in extraordinary times but specify clear triggering conditions, time limits, and reversion paths to prevent the normalization of exceptions.
Looking back at China’s Military Procuratorate, it has undergone a shift from leadership by military political organs to dual leadership by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Central Military Commission’s Political and Legal Affairs Commission. Confronted with a military supervisory commission that holds investigative powers over duty-related crimes, and drawing on comparative reforms, this article proposes three pathways: clarifying the legal character of powers, re-shaping the organizational model, and exercising oversight over the military supervisory commission. The Military Procuratorate is a highly specialized institution that must, on the one hand, remain embedded in the state judicial architecture and, on the other, accommodate the demands of military operations. Tracing reforms since 2016, this article identifies issues such as the weakening of the legal-supervision function and recommends strengthening military rule of law by entrenching the Procuratorate’s status in legal supervision and improving mechanisms for overseeing military supervisory bodies. These discussions not only illuminate China’s military-law reforms but also offer a reference point for other countries grappling with judicial independence and checks and balances within the armed forces.
