This week at SCOTUS: The solicitor general waived the Government’s right to respond to the petition in Daniel. I’m not aware of any other military justice developments at the Supreme Court, where I’m tracking one case:
- Daniel v. United States, No. 14-621 (SG waived resp.; pending conf. on Jan. 9) (pet. discussed here)
This week at CAAF: The next scheduled oral argument at CAAF is on Wednesday, January 14, 2015.
This week at the ACCA: The Army CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Thursday, December 18, 2014, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Chandler, No. 20120680
Issue: Whether the military judge abused his discretion when he held a hearing in revision, with the same panel, in order to correct an erroneous finding instruction.
This week at the AFCCA: The next scheduled oral argument at the Air Force CCA is on January 30, 2015.
This week at the CGCCA: The Coast Guard Trial Docket shows no scheduled oral arguments at the Coast Guard CCA.
This week at the NMCCA: The Navy-Marine Corps CCA will hear oral argument in one case this week, on Tuesday, December 16, 2014, at 10 a.m.:
United States v. Parker
Case summary: A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted the appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of three specifications of attempted violation of a lawful general order, one specification of willfully disobeying a lawful order of a superior commissioned officer, seven specifications of violation of a lawful general order, two specifications of consensual sodomy, four specifications of adultery, and one specification of solicitation of indecent conduct, in violation of Articles 80, 90, 92, 125, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 880, 890, 892, 925, and 934 (2012). The military judge sentenced the appellant to sixty months’ confinement, reduction to pay-grade R-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged, and, except for the dishonorable discharge, ordered it executed.
Issue: Laws that treat constitutionally-protected acts differently must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Private, consensual sex and sodomy between adults are constitutionally protected. The maximum punishment for Article 125, UCMJ, consensual sodomy, includes five years of confinement. The maximum punishment for Article 92, UCMJ, consensual sex, includes only two years of confinement. Because this difference no longer serves any legitimate state interest, is the maximum punishment for Article 125 unconstitutional?