About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 Syllabus: Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Councilman 1 (1974-1975)

handle is hein.usreports/syldasef0001 and id is 1 raw text is: (Slip Opinion) NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be re- leased, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SCHLESINGER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. v. COUNCILMAN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 73-662. Argued December 10, 1974-Decided March 25, 1975 After court-martial charges were preferred against respondent Army captain for the sale, transfer, and possession of marihuana, he brought suit in Federal District Court to enjoin petitioner military authorities from proceeding with the court-martial. The District Court granted a permanent injunction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, on the ground that the offensei charged were not service connected and hence were not within court-martial jurisdiction. Petitioners contend in this Court (1) that any federal-question jurisdiction that the District Court might have had under 28 U. S. C. § 1331 had been removed by Art. 76 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which provides that court- martial proceedings are final and conclusive and that all action taken pursuant to those proceedings [is] binding upon all . . . courts of the United States, and (2) that the District Court im- properly intervened in a pending court-martial proceeding. Held: 1. Article 76 does not stand as a jurisdictional bar to respond- ent's suit, and the District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, assuming the requisite jurisdictional amount. Pp. 5-15. (a) The general rule that the acts of a court-martial, within the scope of its jurisdiction and duty, cannot be controlled or reviewed in the civilian courts, by writ of prohibition or otherwise, Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 177, is subject to its own qualifi- cation that the court-martial's acts be within the scope of its jurisdiction and duty, and hence collateral relief from the conse- quences of a court-martial judgment is not barred if the judgment was void. Pp. 7-10. I