This book addresses the body of statutory and case law covering both the military and military conduct.

Table of Contents

• Foreword
• Introduction
• The Supreme Court and Military Justice in the Civil War Era
• Stirring Public Interest in Military Justice: The General and the Judge
• The Supreme Court's First Encounter with Military Justice
• A Second Chance for Civilian Military Tribunal Jurisdiction (1864)
• Limiting Military Tribunal Jurisdiction in Ex Parte Milligan
• The Supreme Court Speaks
• Early Reactions and Later Impact of Milligan
• Document 1.1 Debating the Validity of Naval Court-Martial in Attempted Desertion Case in Dynes v. Hoover, 1858
• Document 1.2 Majority in Dynes v. Hoover Upholds Court-Martial Procedure
• Document 1.3 Arguing for Right to Civilian Trial in Case of Arrest over Speech at Political Rally in Ex Parte Vallandigham, 1863
• Document 1.4 Majority in Ex Parte Vallandigham Upholds Military Commission Procedure, 1864
• Document 1.5 The Rights of the Citizen in Time of War: Arguments in Ex Parte Milligan, 1866
• Document 1.6 Majority in Ex Parte Milligan Reject Suspension of Habeas Corpus, 1866
• Document 1.7 Chief Justice Chase's Dissent in Ex Parte Milligan Argues That Congress Can Establish Military Commissions, 1866
• Document 1.8 National Intelligencer on Trials of Citizens by Military Courts, December 25, 1866
• Document 1.9 National Intelligencer: Milligan Decision a “Vindication of the Civil Institutions of the Country,” December 20, 1866
• Document 1.10 Congress Has “the Power to Reconstruct the Supreme Court,” New York Herald, December 23, 1866
• Document 1.11 Court Members “Have Devoted Themselves with Dignity,” National Intelligencer, December 31, 1866>
• Document 1.12 Court Used “Technical Narrowness and Harshness” in Deciding Milligan, New York Times, January 3, 1867
• Document 1.13 The Supreme Court Must Avoid Ruling on the Basis of Political Partisanship, The Nation, January 10, 1867
• Document 1.14 Milligan and the Defeated Southern States, Harper's Weekly, January 19, 1867
• The Supreme Court and Military Justice in the World War II Era, 1942–1946 Ex Parte Milligan— Revisited but Still Revered?
• Ex Parte Quirin: The Political and Military Context
• The Background of the Quirin Case
• The Defense's Arguments
• The Prosecution's Arguments
• The Supreme Court Speaks
• In Re Yamashita
• The Enduring Significance of Quirin and Yamashita
• Document 2.2 Roosevelt Establishes a Military Commission to Try Eight Captured German Saboteurs, July 2, 1942
• Document 2.3 “A Good Chance to Go to Town with Democracy,” Saturday Review of Literature, August 8, 1942
• Document 2.4 Majority in Ex Parte Quirin Upholds Use of Military Commission to Try Alleged German Saboteurs, October 29, 1942
• Document 2.5 Majority Rules in In Re Yamashita that Military Officials, Not Courts, Should Review Decisions of Military Tribunals, 1946
• Document 2.6 Justices Murphy and Rutledge Denounce Yamashita Ruling, 1946
• The Supreme Court and Military Justice after World War II,1956–1987 The Odd Odysseys of Toth, O'Callahan, and Solorio, 1956–1987
• Toth v. Quarles
• O'Callahan v. Parker
• Relford v. Commandant
• Gosa v. Mayden
• Solorio v. United States
• Document 3.1 Majority Draws Distinction Between Civilian and Military Trials in Toth v. Quarles Decision, 1955
• Document 3.2 Decision Casts Doubt on Military's Ability to Try Former Prisoners of War in Korea, Army Times, November 12, 1955
• Document 3.3 O'Callahan Lawyer Argues “No Reason” Client Can't Be Tried by Civilian Court, January 23, 1969
• Document 3.4 Majority in O'Callahan v. Parker Limit Military Jurisdiction in Trials, Expanding Toth Ruling, 1969
• Document 3.5 Justice Harlan's Dissent in O'Callahan Says Majority Ruling Fails to Set Standard for Permissible Court-Martial, 1969
• Document 3.6 “The Supreme Court of the United States Drastically Changed Military Justice,” Army Times, June 11, 1969
• Document 3.7 Problems Predicted as a Result of O'Callahan Decision, Army Times, June 18, 1969
• Document 3.8 Defense Secretary Melvin Laird Wants Supreme Court Reversal on O'Callahan, Army Times, July 2, 1969
• Document 3.9 Cartoon: “Latest Salute”
• Document 3.10 Justice Harry Blackmun Says Supreme Court Will One Day Have to Consider Retroactivity of O'Callahan Ruling, February 11, 1971
• Document 3.11 Justice Blackmun Looks at Issue of Military Trials in Light of Need for Military Discipline, Undated Memo
• Document 3.12 Unanimous Court in Relford v. Commandant Rules Serviceman Properly Tried by Court-Martial, 1971
• Document 3.13 Impact of O'Callahan Decision on Active and Former Servicemen, Air Force Times, July 11, 1973
• Document 3.14 Majority in Solorio v. United States Rules Jurisdiction of Court-Martial Does Not Depend on Service Connection, 1987
• Document 3.15 Justice Marshall's Dissent in Solorio Says Majority Shows Desire to Subject Service Members to Unrestrained Control of Military, 1987
• Document 3.16 Solorio Decision Broadened the Jurisdiction of Military Courts, Navy Times, July 6, 1987
• Document 3.17 Solorio Decision Restores Simplicity on Rules on Court-Martial Jurisdiction, Navy Times, July 13, 1987
• Document 3.18 Justice Brennan Sees Presumption Against Military Jurisdiction in Off-Base Cases, Memo, February 27, 1987
• The Supreme Court and Military Justice after 9/11 The Ghost of Milligan Reappears Again
• The Fifth Amendment and Enemy Combatants: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
• Applying Habeas Corpus Outside the United States: Rasul v. Bush
• Building on Rasul: Granting Aliens the Right to Seek Habeas Corpus, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
• Suspending Writs of Habeas Corpus for Aliens: Boumediene v. Bush (2008)
• Document 4.1 Congress Adopts Authorization for Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001
• Document 4.2 Proclamation by President George W. Bush on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, September 18, 2001
• Document 4.3 Plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Rules Those Classified as Enemy Combatants Have the Right to Rebut Accusation, June 28, 2004
• Document 4.4 Justice Scalia: Without Criminal Charges or Suspension of Writ, Hamdi Entitled to Habeas Corpus, June 28, 2004
• Document 4.5 Settlement with U.S. Government Requires Hamdi to Leave the United States, Agree Not to Sue, September 17, 2004
• Document 4.6 Majority in Rasul v. Bush Rule Courts Can Decide Whether Detainees at Guantánamo Lawfully Imprisoned, June 28, 2004
• Document 4.7 Justice Kennedy's Concurrence in Rasul Calls for Federal Court Jurisdiction over Habeas Corpus Appeals, June 28, 2004
• Document 4.8 Congress Acts to Prevent Habeas Corpus Petitions from Detainees at Guantánamo, December 30, 2005
• Document 4.9 Majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Rule Against Military Commissions Set Up to Try Guantánamo Detainees, June 29, 2006
• Document 4.10 Praise for Supreme Court for Limiting Power to Try Guantánamo Detainees Before Military Tribunals, Armed Forces Journal, August 2006
• Document 4.11 Criticism of Supreme Court for Applying Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to Hamdan Case, Armed Forces Journal, August 2006
• Document 4.12 Congress Acts to Prevent Courts from Hearing Habeas Corpus Petitions from Those Deemed Unlawful Combatants, October 17, 2006
• Document 4.13 Majority Rules Detainee Treatment Act Review Procedure Falls Short in Boumediene v. Bush Decision, June 12, 2008