What Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions shape UCMJ jurisdiction over retirees?
Executive summary
Two strands of precedent shape how courts treat retirees under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): long-running military-appellate rulings that treat retirement as a continuing “status” that can carry UCMJ exposure (as in Begani/Dinger lines and CAAF and CCA decisions) and a narrower line of district-court and academic challenges that press Toth-based limits on congressional power to try retirees (notably Larrabee and related district rulings). The Congressional Research Service and multiple appellate decisions say the Supreme Court has not squarely decided the question, but military appellate courts have repeatedly upheld retiree jurisdiction [1] [2] [3].
1. The legal framing: “status” over “service-connection”
Since Solorio and subsequent military-appellate precedent, the dominant test for court-martial jurisdiction is the accused’s status as part of the “land and naval forces” at the time of prosecution rather than whether the offense had a military nexus. Military appeals and practice treat many retirees who remain entitled to pay or on retired lists as still part of the forces and therefore within Article 2 UCMJ coverage [2] [4] [5].
2. Key appellate outcomes that sustain retiree jurisdiction
Courts of criminal appeals and the CAAF have upheld jurisdiction in multiple cases, including decisions that sustained prosecution of Fleet Reserve/Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and regular-component retirees; commentators cite Dinger and Begani as pivotal opinions that confirm retirees entitled to pay can be court-martialed [6] [2] [3]. Military appellate precedent thus forms a consistent line favoring Congress’s Article I power to make rules for the forces and to apply the UCMJ to many retirees [2] [4].
3. Where the law has been challenged: Larrabee and district-court pushes
A contrasting view emerged in district-court litigation such as Larrabee v. Braithwaite, where a judge applied Toth-era limits and found some retiree categories were not sufficiently “part of the land and naval forces” to justify Article 2 jurisdiction — a ruling some commentators call the first significant break in the uniform line of precedent [7]. That district opinion is not binding on military appellate courts, and the government appealed to the D.C. Circuit; the CAAF has also been asked to weigh in on related issues [7].
4. Supreme Court’s role — notable silence, not endorsement
Authoritative sources emphasize that the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on whether Congress may subject retired servicemembers broadly to court-martial jurisdiction, even though the Court has sometimes “approvingly noted” retirees’ continued connection to the forces (CRS summaries). Thus, the military-appellate consensus rests on lower-court and CAAF lines rather than a definitive high-court pronouncement [8] [1].
5. Recent developments and circuit activity
Circuits and the Tenth Circuit in 2025 (Wilson v. Curtis) have been moving to confirm that formal retiree status — including medically retired members — supports UCMJ jurisdiction under the “make Rules” clause, aligning some federal circuits with military appellate authorities; commentators view those rulings as narrowing constitutional avenues for habeas challenges by retirees [9] [10]. At the same time, contested cases like Begani and Larrabee continue to generate splits and potential for future Supreme Court review [7] [3].
6. Practical consequences and unanswered questions
Practically, many legal commentators and military defense practitioners advise retirees that those “entitled to pay” or placed on retired lists can be subject to courts-martial and that appeals proceed through the CCAs and ultimately the CAAF [4] [5]. But questions persist — for example, whether particular retiree categories (some reserve retiree statuses) differ, and whether Congress could or should limit jurisdiction by statute — and CRS notes such changes would likely come from Congress rather than the Supreme Court [1] [8].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden incentives
Pro-military-jurisdiction authorities emphasize continuity, recallability, and the need to preserve discipline — an administrative and force-readiness rationale that supports treating retirees as still within the forces [2] [3]. Critics and some district courts argue that extending lifetime military jurisdiction to retirees enlarges criminal exposure without sufficient connection to active service and may be driven by institutional incentives to retain disciplinary control; CRS and academic commentary identify these policy tensions and note proposals to limit certain punitive articles for retirees [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
If you are a retiree or advising one, available sources show that military appellate law and recent federal-circuit decisions generally support UCMJ jurisdiction over retirees who remain on retired lists or entitled to pay, but the Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling and litigation (Larrabee, Begani) continues to test boundaries — meaning challenges remain possible and statutory reform is an open policy path [2] [8] [7].
Limitations: This summary relies on congressional research, military-appellate reporting, and contemporary commentary in the provided sources; available sources do not mention a single, definitive Supreme Court decision resolving all retiree‑jurisdiction questions [8] [1].