What defenses have succeeded in challenging military jurisdiction over retired personnel in recent appellate decisions?

1. Background: why jurisdiction over retirees is contested

Federal law and long‑standing military practice treat many retirees as retaining “military status” — they receive pay, can be recalled, and in some cases wear uniforms — and those features have historically supported court‑martial jurisdiction under the UCMJ, but scholars and some judges counter that those ties are too attenuated to justify trying essentially civilian retirees in military courts ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Statutory‑status defenses that have succeeded in lower courts

One successful line of defense argued that particular statutory categories of retirees — notably Fleet Marine Corps Reservists and, in another suit, certain medically retired personnel — are not meaningfully part of the armed forces and thus fall outside Article I military jurisdiction; that theory underpinned a district‑court victory in Larrabee v. Braithwaite and earlier mixed results in cases like Begani, where the Navy‑Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals found the Fleet Reserve status distinction dispositive and overturned a conviction ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Consent and role‑based defenses: contractors and voluntary bonds to the military

A second proven defense thread borrows from Supreme Court precedents holding the military may not conscript private actors into court‑martial jurisdiction absent a voluntary, binding relationship — a theory courts applied to distinguish private contractors and other non‑members from true servicemembers, and that doctrine continues to inform challenges to subject‑matter jurisdiction over retirees who never consented to military discipline ^[3].

4. Why those defenses sometimes win — and why they often lose on appeal

Lower courts have credited granular, status‑based evidence — whether a retiree can be involuntarily recalled, actually performs military duties, or receives retainer pay tied to obligations — reasoning that statutory categories can create meaningful differences in status; when records show minimal ties, courts have found jurisdiction lacking ^{[3] [5]}. Yet appellate courts repeatedly push back, emphasizing longstanding statutory text and precedent that treat retirement as preserving membership and therefore UCMJ exposure, as the Tenth Circuit and other appellate panels have affirmed in recent spells of litigation, showing the defenses’ vulnerability when courts prioritize congressional authority over practical function ^{[6] [3]}.

5. The current appellate landscape: mixed precedents, high‑stakes appeals

The net result is doctrinal fragmentation: district courts and some service appellate panels have produced victories for defendants attacking jurisdiction, but higher appellate rulings — including the Tenth Circuit’s confirmation that retirees (including medical retirees) retain military status in Dillon and other recent decisions — have re‑entrenched the government’s view that retirement does not remove UCMJ coverage, and some of the most consequential wins remain under appeal to circuit courts or are awaiting Supreme Court review ^{[6] [3] [4]}.

6. Practical consequences and the unresolved question for the Supreme Court

Practically, successful defenses have been narrowly tailored and fact‑intensive — winning where judges find statutory categories or consent‑based doctrines actually remove the defendant from a continuing military relationship — but appellate pushback means those wins are precarious unless a circuit split crystalizes and the Supreme Court resolves the underlying constitutional question, which has not yet happened ^{[1] [2] [4]}.