Armed forces of the United States, which has its own courts that enforces the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
When the Supreme Court defined the relationship between the military and the Court in the mid-nineteenth century, it recognized the military as a legally separate sphere that looks primarily to the Congress and the president for protection and governance rather than to the courts and the Constitution. In Dynes v. Hoover
In Burns v. Wilson
The Court tends to defer to the determination of Congress. In Weiss v. United States
The Court has generally adhered to a deferential standard of review with few notable exceptions. One exception is Frontiero v. Richardson
Although the degree to which the Bill of Rights
Aside from due process rights, members of the armed services have fewer rights with respect to free speech and political participation. For example, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice proscribes the use of “contemptuous words” against the president and other high political officials, and Articles 133 (proscribing conduct unbecoming) and 134 (the general article, proscribing service-discrediting conduct) may be used to prosecute disloyal statements. Rights to demonstrate and affiliate with advocacy groups, especially extremist groups or hate groups, which would be protected for civilians, are denied to those in the military. Similar First Amendment restrictions that would be unthinkable in a civilian context have been held constitutional. For example, the Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits the sale or rental of sexually explicit materials at military exchanges was held constitutional in a lower court in General Media Communications v. Cohen in 1997. The Court also found that religious practices or beliefs cannot excuse compliance with military regulations such as those governing uniform standards. For example, in Goldman v. Weinberger
Even though racial classifications are subject to the “most rigid scrutiny” under the equal protection clause, the Court found that wartime necessities allow a military commander to issue a racially based curfew in Hirabayashi v. United States
Some provisions of the Bill of Rights such as the Fifth Amendment expressly exempt members of the military from their scope. The Fifth Amendment excepts from its coverage “cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” The Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by jury has been treated similarly by implication in Ex parte Milligan
In Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co.
A major period of conflict between the Court and the military occurred during the Civil War
Like Milligan’s case, the cases of Ex parte McCardle
Two other attempts to bring the matter of congressional Reconstruction before the Court directly also failed on justiciability grounds. The resolution of these cases prevented a major contest between the Court and the military. Two other cases, Mississippi v. Johnson
Bishop, Joseph W., Jr., Justice Under Fire: A Study of Military Law. New York: Charterhouse, 1974. Borch, Frederick L. Judge Advocates in Combat: Army Lawyers in Military Operations from Vietnam to Haiti. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Judge Advocate General and Center of Military History, United States Army, 2001. Fairman, Charles. Reconstruction and Reunion, 1864-1888. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Lurie, Jonathan. Arming Military Justice: Origins of the United States Court of Military Appeals, 1775-1950. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992. Lurie, Jonathan. Pursuing Military Justice: The History of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1951-1980. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998. Shanor, Charles A., and L. Lynn Hogue. Military Law in a Nutshell. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1996.
Bill of Rights
Frontiero v. Richardson
Hirabayashi v. United States
McCardle, Ex parte
Milligan, Ex parte
Mississippi v. Johnson
Quirin, Ex parte
Rostker v. Goldberg
War and civil liberties