Introduction

United States of America v. Steven D. Green is a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, delivered on August 16, 2011. The case addresses critical issues surrounding the jurisdiction of civilian courts over discharged military personnel under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). Steven D. Green, a former infantryman in the United States Army, was convicted of heinous crimes committed in Iraq, including sexual assault and multiple murders. This commentary examines the background of the case, the court's reasoning, the application of precedents, and the broader implications for military and federal jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

Steven D. Green was discharged from the Army due to a diagnosed personality disorder before his involvement in multiple atrocities in Iraq was discovered. Unlike his co-conspirators who remained active duty and were tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Army lacked authority to court-martial Green post-discharge. Consequently, civilian prosecutors charged him under MEJA, which allows for federal jurisdiction over crimes committed by former military personnel abroad. Green challenged the jurisdiction of the district court and the constitutionality of MEJA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Green's discharge was valid and that MEJA is constitutional, thereby upholding his conviction and sentence of five consecutive life terms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to underpin its decision:

• United States ex rel. TOTH v. QUARLES: Established that the military cannot court-martial a discharged servicemember.
• United States v. Brehm: Confirmed that nationality does not impact the applicability of MEJA.
• United States v. Harmon and United States v. King: Defined the requirements for a valid military discharge, emphasizing the necessity of fulfilling all King elements.
• ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. MINETA: Highlighted the importance of standing in constitutional challenges.
• Lyng v. Ntv. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n: Emphasized judicial restraint in constitutional matters unless necessary.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning can be broken down into two primary concerns: statutory jurisdiction and constitutional validity of MEJA.

1. Jurisdiction

Green argued that his discharge was invalid due to non-compliance with specific Army regulations, thereby remaining subject to UCMJ and preventing civilian jurisdiction under MEJA. The court meticulously examined whether the discharge met the "King elements," which include the delivery of a valid discharge certificate, final accounting of pay, and completion of a clearing process. Despite Green's claims regarding procedural deficiencies, the court found that the Army had fulfilled these requirements, rendering his discharge valid and affirming the district court's jurisdiction under MEJA.

2. Constitutional Claims

Green contended that MEJA violated several constitutional principles:

• Separation of Powers and Nondelegation: The court held that MEJA does not unlawfully delegate legislative authority, as it provides clear guidelines without encroaching upon other branches.
• Equal Protection: Green's argument that he was unfairly treated compared to his co-conspirators was dismissed as the prosecution's discretion was deemed rational and non-discriminatory.
• Due Process: The court found no substantive or procedural due process violations, as MEJA provided a legitimate framework for prosecution without arbitrary or unfair procedures.

Ultimately, the court concluded that MEJA operates within constitutional boundaries, and Green's prosecution was both legally and procedurally sound.

Impact

The decision in United States v. Green has significant implications for the prosecution of discharged military personnel. It reinforces the authority of MEJA to extend federal jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by former servicemembers, thereby closing a critical jurisdictional gap. This affirmation ensures that individuals who disengage from military service cannot evade accountability for serious offenses committed during their service.

Additionally, the ruling upholds the constitutionality of MEJA, providing legal certainty and reinforcing the balance of power among federal branches by adhering to separation of powers and nondelegation principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA)

MEJA is a federal law that allows civilian courts to prosecute military personnel for crimes committed abroad after they have been discharged from service. This means that even if the military justice system (UCMJ) cannot try a former service member, the federal courts can.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

The UCMJ is the set of laws governing the conduct of members of the United States Armed Forces. It outlines offenses, procedures, and punishments specific to military personnel.

King Elements

These are the three critical components required for a valid military discharge:

1. Delivery of a valid discharge certificate.
2. Final accounting of pay.
3. Completion of a clearing process, ensuring all administrative procedures for separation from service are fulfilled.

Separation-of-Powers Principle

This constitutional doctrine ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government operate independently, each within its own sphere of authority, preventing any single branch from gaining excessive power.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Green serves as a pivotal affirmation of MEJA's jurisdiction over discharged military personnel committing crimes abroad. By meticulously analyzing the validity of Green's discharge and rigorously upholding the constitutionality of MEJA, the court has strengthened the framework ensuring that individuals cannot evade justice post-military service. This judgment underscores the commitment to accountability and the seamless integration of military and federal legal systems in addressing severe criminal conduct, thereby enhancing the rule of law within both military and civilian contexts.