What Are Military Tribunals and How Do They Work?

Military tribunals are specialized courts that operate outside the civilian justice system to try offenses committed by service members and, in narrower circumstances, by certain civilians and foreign combatants. They come in two families. Courts-martial, governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, handle criminal cases against people in uniform. Military commissions, governed by a separate chapter of Title 10, try foreign nationals accused of war crimes. The type of tribunal determines who can be tried, what punishments are on the table, and what procedural protections apply.

Who Can Be Tried

The UCMJ reaches everyone in the armed forces from the moment they enter service until discharge. That includes active-duty members of every branch, cadets and midshipmen at the service academies, and people awaiting separation after their enlistment ends. Reservists and National Guard members fall under it while on active duty, during inactive-duty training, and during related travel.¹

Retirees of a regular component who are entitled to pay remain subject to military jurisdiction at all times. The reasoning is that they continue drawing military pay and can be recalled to active duty, so they retain their status as members of the armed forces for UCMJ purposes.¹

Civilians can also fall under military jurisdiction in narrow circumstances. During a declared war or contingency operation, anyone serving with or accompanying the armed forces in the field is subject to the UCMJ. Outside the United States, civilians employed by or accompanying the military can be subject to military law consistent with treaties and international law. Contractors, translators, and support personnel deployed with troops have historically fallen into this category.¹

Foreign nationals accused of war crimes are handled through military commissions, described further below. U.S. citizens cannot be tried by military commission.

The Three Levels of Court-Martial

The UCMJ sorts courts-martial into three tiers, each with its own jurisdiction and punishment ceiling.² Which tier hears the case shapes almost everything else about it.

Summary Court-Martial

A summary court-martial is a single commissioned officer acting as judge, jury, and counsel combined. It handles only noncapital offenses and cannot try commissioned officers, cadets, or midshipmen. Punishments are capped at one month of confinement, 45 days of hard labor without confinement, two months of restriction, reduction in rank, or forfeiture of up to two-thirds of one month’s pay. A bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge is not available.³

Two things set summary courts-martial apart. The accused can refuse one entirely, which pushes the case to a special or general court-martial. And a guilty finding is not classified as a criminal conviction, because the forum itself is non-criminal.³

Special Court-Martial

Special courts-martial handle intermediate-level offenses. They can hear any noncapital offense under the UCMJ, and capital offenses under certain conditions. Maximum punishments include up to one year of confinement, forfeiture of up to two-thirds pay per month for up to one year, reduction in rank, and a bad-conduct discharge. A dishonorable discharge or officer dismissal is not available at this level. When a military judge sits alone under certain referral conditions, confinement and forfeitures are further capped at six months each.⁴

General Court-Martial

General courts-martial are reserved for the most serious offenses. They can try any offense under the UCMJ and impose any lawful punishment up to and including death where the death penalty is specifically authorized. Some offenses, including rape and sexual assault of a child, can only be tried at this level. General courts-martial also have jurisdiction over anyone subject to trial by military tribunal under the law of war.⁵

Military Commissions

Military commissions are governed by Chapter 47A of Title 10, not the UCMJ’s court-martial provisions. They try foreign nationals classified as “unprivileged enemy belligerents” for violations of the law of war and related offenses. An unprivileged enemy belligerent is someone who has engaged in or materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, or who was part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense.⁶

Commission procedures are modeled on general courts-martial but are not bound by the UCMJ unless Congress specifically says so. Commissions can impose any punishment not forbidden by statute, including the death penalty where authorized.⁶ The most visible commission proceedings have taken place at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where cases continue as of early 2026, including motions hearings in the long-running prosecution of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and co-defendants tied to the September 11 attacks.⁷

How a Court-Martial Moves From Charge to Judgment

A case usually starts with an investigation by a service investigative agency such as the Army Criminal Investigation Division, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or Air Force Office of Special Investigations. If the evidence supports it, charges are formally preferred against the accused.

Before a case can be referred to a general court-martial, the UCMJ requires a preliminary hearing under Article 32. A hearing officer reviews the evidence and decides whether probable cause exists to believe the accused committed the offense, whether the charges allege a valid UCMJ violation, and whether the convening authority has jurisdiction, then makes a recommendation about how the case should proceed.⁸ People often compare an Article 32 hearing to a civilian grand jury, but the comparison is loose. The accused has more rights: they can attend, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses.

Once charges are referred, the accused is arraigned, the charges are read, and a plea is entered. Trial follows a familiar rhythm of opening statements, prosecution and defense evidence, witness testimony, and closing arguments. If the accused is found guilty, a separate sentencing phase follows.

After trial, the military judge enters a Statement of Trial Results documenting every plea, finding, and sentence, addresses post-trial motions, and enters a formal judgment.⁹ This is a significant departure from earlier practice, when the convening authority who ordered the court-martial had broad power to modify or disapprove findings and sentences. That role has been sharply curtailed.

Rights of the Accused

Service members facing a court-martial have substantial legal protections, though some work differently than in civilian court.

Article 31 of the UCMJ prohibits compulsory self-incrimination and requires specific warnings before interrogation. Before questioning a suspect, military investigators must state the nature of the accusation, advise the person that they have no obligation to make any statement about the alleged offense, and warn that anything they say can be used against them at a court-martial. Statements obtained in violation of these rules, or through coercion, are inadmissible.¹⁰ These warnings predate the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision by more than a decade and reach further in some respects, because they apply to questioning by a military superior, not only custodial interrogation by law enforcement.

Search and seizure protections also apply. Under the Military Rules of Evidence, evidence obtained from an unlawful search is inadmissible where the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Search authorizations must be based on probable cause, and the prosecution must prove consent to a consensual search by clear and convincing evidence.

The accused has the right to a military defense attorney at no cost for any general or special court-martial, and that counsel is detailed automatically. The accused can also hire a civilian attorney at their own expense; if they do, the military defense counsel stays on as associate counsel unless the accused specifically asks to have them released.¹¹ The accused can request a specific military attorney, and that request must be granted if the attorney is “reasonably available.” In capital cases, the defense team must include at least one attorney experienced in death penalty law, and if that qualified attorney is a civilian, the government covers the cost.¹²

Who Decides Whether to Prosecute

The Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) began exercising independent authority on December 28, 2023. Congress created it to remove the decision to prosecute certain serious crimes from the chain of command and place it with independent, specially trained prosecutors.

The OSTC has exclusive authority over a defined set of “covered offenses” that includes murder, manslaughter, rape and sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, kidnapping, domestic violence, stalking, retaliation, and offenses involving intimate visual images, along with conspiracies and attempts to commit any of these crimes.¹³ For those offenses, the Special Trial Counsel independently decides whether court-martial charges are warranted. Commanders no longer make that call.

When the OSTC declines to prosecute a covered offense, commanders cannot send the case to court-martial on their own. They keep limited authority to respond through administrative actions such as letters of reprimand, non-judicial punishment, or administrative discharge, but the trial decision belongs exclusively to the OSTC.¹⁴

Non-Judicial Punishment as an Alternative

Not every allegation lands in court. For less serious offenses, commanding officers can impose discipline through non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ. It is faster and less formal than a court-martial and gives commanders a way to address misconduct without a full trial. Available punishments depend on the rank of the commander and the rank of the accused, and they range from correctional custody and extra duties to restriction, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in pay grade.¹⁵

Except for service members attached to or embarked on a vessel, the accused can refuse non-judicial punishment and demand trial by court-martial instead. That choice cuts both ways: a court-martial offers more procedural protections but exposes the accused to harsher penalties.¹⁵

How Courts-Martial Differ From Civilian Courts

The most visible difference is the jury, which the military calls a panel. In civilian courts, jurors are randomly selected from the community. In a court-martial, the convening authority identifies panel members from the armed forces based on criteria including age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament. Recent reforms require randomized selection of qualified personnel to the maximum extent practicable.¹⁶

Panel composition also works differently. Only commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members on active duty are eligible. When possible, no panel member should be junior in rank to the accused. An enlisted accused can request that enlisted members make up at least one-third of the panel, or ask for an all-officer panel instead. Anyone who served as the accuser, a prosecution witness, the preliminary hearing officer, or counsel in the same case is automatically disqualified.¹⁶

Judges in courts-martial are military officers detailed as military judges, not civilian appointees with life tenure. Rules of evidence are adapted from federal rules but include military-specific provisions such as the Article 31 self-incrimination protections and rules for searches authorized by commanders rather than magistrates.

Appeals

The military appellate system runs separately from the federal civilian courts until its final step. Each branch has its own Court of Criminal Appeals, which automatically reviews cases involving a punitive discharge, confinement of a year or more, or dismissal of an officer. These courts can review both facts and law, and they have the power to reduce a sentence or overturn a conviction if the evidence is insufficient.

Above the service-level courts sits the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a five-judge civilian court with worldwide jurisdiction over military cases. Its judges are civilians appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The court reviews cases on a discretionary basis, with mandatory review in certain situations including death sentences and cases certified by a service’s Judge Advocate General.

Since 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court can grant certiorari to review decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, including cases where that court denied review. Congress removed the prior limitation that had blocked Supreme Court review of denied petitions.⁵

Consequences of a Court-Martial Conviction

Courts-martial can impose two types of punitive discharge, and the difference matters for the rest of a person’s life. A bad-conduct discharge can come from a special or general court-martial and signals conviction of serious misconduct. A dishonorable discharge is more severe and can only come from a general court-martial, typically for felony-level offenses. Commissioned officers cannot receive either; the equivalent for them is a dismissal.⁴⁵

The practical fallout is severe. Federal law generally does not recognize someone with a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge as a veteran for benefits purposes. That means loss of VA healthcare, GI Bill education benefits, home loan guarantees, and most other federal veterans programs. Many state benefits follow the same rule.

Victim Rights

Victims of offenses prosecuted under the UCMJ have defined procedural rights under Article 6b. A victim is anyone who suffered direct physical, emotional, or financial harm from an offense under the code. Their rights include reasonable protection from the accused, timely notice of hearings and plea agreements, the right not to be excluded from public proceedings absent a specific judicial finding, the right to be heard at sentencing and clemency proceedings, and the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.¹⁷

Victims also have access to a Special Victims’ Counsel, a military attorney who represents the victim’s interests through the process. Defense counsel who want to interview the victim must go through that counsel or another representative, and the victim can require any interview to take place in the presence of their own counsel or a victim advocate.¹⁷

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 802 Art. 2 Persons Subject to This Chapter
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 816 Art. 16 Courts-Martial Classified
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 820 Art. 20 Jurisdiction of Summary Courts-Martial
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 819 Art. 19 Jurisdiction of Special Courts-Martial
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 818 Art. 18 Jurisdiction of General Courts-Martial
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC Chapter 47A Military Commissions Subchapter I General Provisions
7
Office of Military Commissions. Court Calendar
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 832 Art. 32 Preliminary Hearing Required Before Referral to General Court-Martial
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 860 Art. 60 Post-Trial Processing in General and Special Courts-Martial
10
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 831 Art. 31 Compulsory Self-Incrimination Prohibited
11
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 838 Art. 38 Duties of Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel
12
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 827 Art. 27 Detail of Trial Counsel and Defense Counsel
13
Navy JAG Corps. Office of Special Trial Counsel Frequently Asked Questions
14
Air Force JAG Corps. OSTC FAQ
15
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 815 Art. 15 Commanding Officers Non-Judicial Punishment
16
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 825 Art. 25 Who May Serve on Courts-Martial
17
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 USC 806b Art. 6b Rights of the Victim of an Offense Under This Chapter