Also known as: military tribunal · military commissions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A specialized judicial body convened by military authorities to try offenses against the law of war or to adjudicate enemy combatant status.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Mustafa Mahmoud, a U.S. citizen software engineer, was seized at his workplace and transferred to a military facility after intelligence reports labeled him an enemy combatant for alleged coordination of cyberattacks. The government provided only vague summaries and refused any forum for rebuttal. A federal court ordered that Mustafa receive a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker where he could contest the factual basis for his detention.
Ming Ma, a civilian contractor, challenged an agency determination that imposed penalties after a field commission reviewed classified reports without allowing cross-examination. The court examined whether the commission operated as a military tribunal whose jurisdiction turned on the existence of a military relationship. Because no such relationship existed, the court held that ordinary Article III review remained available.
Marcus Mitchell, a captured foreign operative, faced trial before a commission created solely by presidential order. The commission permitted undisclosed intercepts and denied defense access to evidence. A federal court ruled that the commission could not proceed because Congress had not authorized departures from the procedural requirements of the laws of war.
Maya Malik and Miguel Mendoza, German nationals who landed on U.S. shores to commit sabotage, were captured in civilian clothing and charged with violations of the law of war. The President convened a military tribunal to try them. The tribunal's jurisdiction was upheld because the offenses were recognized under the law of war and Congress had sanctioned such commissions.
Melanie Morris, a U.S. civilian, was arrested in Indiana for alleged disloyal statements during the Civil War. A military tribunal convicted her despite the availability of open civilian courts. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the civilian courts remained open and no military necessity justified trying her before a military body.
Meridian Motors employees captured abroad and held at a foreign military base petitioned for habeas relief after conviction by a military tribunal. The court denied the petitions because the detainees were enemy aliens with no connection to U.S. territory and no prior presence in the United States. The tribunal's judgment therefore stood without further domestic judicial review.
No. Treaties and executive agreements occupy a high place in federal law but remain subordinate to the Constitution. They cannot authorize government action that violates specific constitutional protections such as the warrant requirement. A binational military tribunal created by treaty therefore cannot compel disclosure without complying with Fourth Amendment limits.
Supporting sources
…permissible upon such record. (b) In re Grimley , 137 U.S. 147, and In re Morrissey , 137 U.S. 157, deal with the action of military tribunals. Military tribunals form a system of courts separate from the civil courts and created by virtue of an independent grant of power in the Constitution. Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, 16. They have…
…Court granted habeas relief and stayed the commission’s proceedings, concluding that the President’s authority to establish military commissions
…obedience. In case of a general misbehaviors, they may be forced to suspend several officers, and put others in their places. "A military tribunal is capable of feeling all these circumstances, and understanding that the first, second, and third part of a soldier is obedience. But what condition will a commander be in, if, upon the…
…Ex parte Quirin , 317 U.S. 1, we had occasion to consider at length the sources and nature of the authority to create military commissions
…on Congress' authority to displace Art. III courts. In that case the Government attempted to try a civilian ex-serviceman in a military tribunal
Yes. The Due Process Clause entitles such a citizen to a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis before a neutral decisionmaker. Procedures may be tailored to military exigencies through relaxed evidentiary rules, hearsay, rebuttable presumptions, or a properly constituted military tribunal, but the government cannot eliminate all opportunity for rebuttal.
Supporting sources
No. Treaties and executive agreements cannot authorize criminal proceedings that deny specific constitutional safeguards to civilians. A bilateral agreement creating a maritime conduct panel that imposes confinement without a civilian judge or jury therefore exceeds constitutional limits and is invalid as applied to the civilian.
Supporting sources
No. National security permits tailoring of procedures but does not authorize the total denial of any opportunity to contest the factual basis. A process that provides only vague summaries, bars all access to evidence, and offers no neutral forum fails the constitutional requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Supporting sources