United States Ex Rel. Hirshberg v. Cooke

Background

The case involves a sailor who, after serving a second enlistment and becoming a World War II prisoner of war, was honorably discharged and immediately re-enlisted. About a year later he was tried by a Navy general court-martial for maltreating other enlisted men during his earlier enlistment while they were prisoners. He was convicted and sentenced. A federal district court found the court-martial had no statutory power and ordered his release; the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review because the issue affected Navy and Army court-martial powers.

Reasoning

The Court examined Article 8 and related provisions and the long history of Army and Navy practice. It noted an 1863 statute that allowed trial after discharge only for specific frauds, and a 1919 Attorney General opinion and decades of practice that treated discharged servicemen as not amenable to military trial for prior-enlistment offenses. The Navy’s later 1932 interpretation and regulations could not, the Court held, expand the limits that Congress set. Relying on statutory text, history, and longstanding practice, the Court concluded the Navy lacked power under statute to try the sailor for conduct in his prior enlistment.

Real world impact

The decision narrows the situations in which military courts may punish conduct from a prior enlistment and places responsibility on Congress to change that rule. It affects how both the Navy and Army may assert jurisdiction over re-enlisted or formerly discharged service members and resolves conflicting service views on this point.