Schlesinger v. Councilman

1975-03-25

Headline: Limits federal courts from stopping pending military trials: justices reversed an injunction and ruled judges should generally not enjoin courts-martial, making federal intervention harder for servicemembers accused of ordinary crimes.

Holding: The Court held that Article 76 of the military code does not strip federal courts of jurisdiction, but federal district courts should normally refuse to enjoin pending court-martials and require exhaustion of military remedies when only ordinary prosecution harm exists.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for servicemembers to get federal injunctions stopping pending courts-martial.
Requires servicemembers to pursue military appeal routes before seeking federal equitable relief.
Reinforces military courts’ primary role in judging service-related offenses and discipline.

Topics: military justice, court-martial, federal courts, servicemembers and drug offenses

Summary

Background

An Army captain stationed at Fort Sill was charged with selling, transferring, and possessing marijuana after off-post meetings with an undercover enlisted agent. A federal district judge permanently blocked the military from trying him, and the Court of Appeals agreed that the offenses were not "service connected." The Government asked the high court to decide whether federal judges may intervene before a court-martial proceeds.

Reasoning

The Court first said the military code provision cited by the Government does not automatically remove federal courts’ power to hear claims. Still, the Justices held that ordinary equitable rules apply: when a servicemember shows no injury beyond the normal costs and risks of a criminal prosecution, federal district courts should generally refrain from enjoining pending court-martials and should require the servicemember to pursue available military remedies first. The opinion distinguished prior cases where civilians challenged military jurisdiction and explained that military tribunals and the Court of Military Appeals have a primary role in assessing service-related questions.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it far less likely that a federal judge will block a pending court-martial except in unusual circumstances. Servicemembers charged with off-duty or off-post crimes will in most cases have to use the military’s review process before seeking federal injunctions. The Court did not decide whether the particular marijuana offenses were properly "service connected," so that factual question remains for military review and possible later litigation.

Dissents or concurrances

A three-Justice opinion warned that military tribunals lack expertise to decide certain constitutional jurisdiction questions and objected to the new exhaustion rule; the Chief Justice concurred only in the judgment, urging dismissal on a different equitable ground.