Also known as: military courts · court-martial · military tribunal
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tribunal established under military authority to adjudicate offenses by members of the armed forces and certain civilians during hostilities. These tribunals operate independently of the civilian court system and remain subject to constitutional limits that bar their use against American civilians when ordinary courts are open and functioning.
Miguel Mendoza, a civilian nurse at a private hospital, was arrested after a bioterror incident. Military authorities declared the hospital a temporary military zone and convened a court-martial even though the nearby federal courthouse continued to hold jury trials. Mendoza petitioned the district court to halt the proceeding.
Monica Morgan, a U.S. citizen software engineer, was seized at a federal technology hub and held in a military brig as an enemy combatant. The government offered only ex parte review of classified affidavits with no opportunity for her to appear or present evidence. Morgan filed a habeas petition demanding a neutral forum to contest the designation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Matthew Martinez, a civilian subcontractor on an overseas base project, sued a foreign supplier for breach of a supply agreement. The executive branch directed the claim into a joint military tribunal created by treaty rather than an Article III court. Martinez challenged the referral as exceeding constitutional bounds on non-Article III adjudication.
Marcus Mitchell, a former service member accused of an offense committed while on active duty, faced a court-martial convened under a broad statutory delegation to the executive. He argued that the delegation lacked an intelligible principle and improperly assigned core judicial functions to a military body. The district court reviewed the scope of the delegation before allowing the proceeding to continue.
Michelle Murphy, a U.S. citizen journalist, was detained after reporting from a conflict zone and transferred to a military commission for trial on charges of aiding enemy forces. The commission operated under procedures that limited access to classified evidence and denied full confrontation rights. Murphy sought review in federal court asserting that the commission lacked statutory and constitutional authority.
Madison Meyers, a civilian employee at a military installation, was charged with an offense arising from her work and referred to a military court. She contested the referral on the ground that the executive's removal authority over tribunal members undermined the required separation between military and civilian justice. The court examined the structural relationship before deciding whether to permit the military proceeding.
Congress may not authorize military courts to try American civilians when civilian courts remain open and functioning, even during declared martial law. The Constitution requires that civilians receive indictment and jury trial protections in Article III courts under those circumstances.
Supporting sources
A U.S. citizen held as an enemy combatant inside the United States is entitled to a meaningful opportunity before a neutral decisionmaker to contest the factual basis for detention. Procedures may be tailored for military exigencies, including use of hearsay and rebuttable presumptions, but the government cannot deny all opportunity to refute the allegations.
Supporting sources
Civilian courts may independently determine whether a military tribunal had jurisdiction over the person and subject matter and whether it exceeded its powers, because Congress has not provided for direct review of military tribunal decisions.
Supporting sources
Yes, a properly constituted military tribunal can serve as the neutral decisionmaker required by due process when a citizen is detained as an enemy combatant, provided the detainee receives a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis even under relaxed evidentiary rules.
Supporting sources
…rejected any constitutional distinction between capital and noncapital offenses as regards congressional power to provide for court-martial trials of civilian dependents of armed forces personnel. Having previously held that civilian dependents could not constitutionally be deprived of the protections of Article III and the…