Bonus 44: Challenging Courts-Martial of Retired Servicemembers

As one of the lawyers bringing the challenge, I'm more than a little biased, but the Supreme Court ought to take up an important test case on the constitutional scope of military jurisdiction

Welcome back to the weekly bonus content for “One First.” Although Monday’s regular newsletter will remain free for as long as I’m able to do this, much of Thursday’s content is behind a paywall to help incentivize those who are willing and able to support the work that goes into putting this newsletter together every week. I’m grateful to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and hope that those of you who aren’t will consider a paid subscription if your circumstances permit:

One of the central distinctions between the substance of Monday’s free issues and that of Thursday’s bonus content is the personalization of the latter. To that end, I thought I’d use today’s issue—to talk about one of my own cases: a pending cert. petition asking the Supreme Court to resolve whether it is constitutional for the federal government to try by court-martial (rather than civilian court) retired military servicemembers for offenses they commit after they have retired. I’m obviously biased (as the lead counsel for the petitioner in the case, Larrabee v. Del Toro), but I think it’s long-past time for the justices to resolve a constitutional question that has been open since at least the 1960s—and think that the Larrabee case is as good a vehicle through which to resolve the issue as any.

For those who are not paid subscribers, the next free installment of the newsletter will drop on Monday morning. For those who are, please read on.