CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

MJRP Dead in the Water

7/22/2021

 
Sources tell us that the Military Justice Review Panel is non-functioning. Despite having a report due in two months, members received a message today stating "We remain in a 'stand by' status for the MJRP and appointment of members.” The members were actually appointed in December of last year. It goes without saying that 2021 is bad year to have this panel dead in the water. 
The Secretary of Defense shall establish a panel to conduct independent periodic reviews and assessments of the operation of this chapter. The panel shall be known as the “Military Justice Review Panel” (int this section referred to as the “Panel”).
Aricle146, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 946(a). For all intents and purposes the MJRP is intended to replace the CAAF Code Committee.
​
​Code Committee
Article 146 of the UCMJ historically established a committee to meet annually for the purpose of making an annual survey of the operation of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice.) The Committee was composed of the judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General of the Army, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and two members of the public appointed by the Secretary of Defense. The meetings were open to the public. Notice of the meetings was published in the Federal Register and on this webpage. The Annual Reports of the Committee were published in West's Military Justice Reporter. The historic reports are available on the Court's website.
​

Article 146 was modified by the Military Justice Act of 2016,1 creating a new Military Justice Review Panel established by the Secretary of Defense. The Court's limited interface with the new panel, as found in the statute, is that the Secretary of Defense is to consider any recommendation made by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for the nonspecified remaining members of the panel. The Court's historic role on the former Code Committee and in compiling the annual report was replaced by a separate reporting requirement for the Court. See Article 146a(a) (prescribing an annual report from the Court
Scott
7/22/2021 01:34:25 pm

That’s very strange. Why might this be?

Attorney
7/22/2021 05:50:35 pm

Politics comes to mind. Panel was appointed in Dec 2020 during outgoing administration.

Isaac Kennen
7/23/2021 07:17:39 am

Perhaps the December appointments were not valid because the person who made the appointments, Christopher Miller, was an Acting Secretary of Defense who was never confirmed by the Senate to the position and was himself appointed, in violation of the Vacancy Act, from outside the line of succession?


Comments are closed.
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home