10 U.S.C. § 818

Art. 18. Jurisdiction of general courts-martial

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), general courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any offense made punishable by this chapter and may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when specifically authorized by this chapter. General courts-martial also have jurisdiction to try any person who by the law of war is subject to trial by a military tribunal and may adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war.(b) A general court-martial of the kind specified in section 816(b)(3) of this title (article 16(b)(3)) shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.(c) Consistent with sections 819 and 820 of this title (articles 19 and 20), only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over the following offenses:(1) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 920 of this title (article 120).(2) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 920b of this title (article 120b).(3) An attempt to commit an offense specified in paragraph (1) or (2) that is punishable under section 880 of this title (article 80).(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 43; Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(4), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1335; Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XVII, § 1705(b), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 959; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIV, § 5162, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2898.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
818	50:578.	May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 18), 64 Stat. 114.

The word “shall” is omitted as surplusage wherever it occurs.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5162(1), substituted “section 816(b)(3) of this title (article 16(b)(3))” for “section 816(1)(B) of this title (article 16(1)(B))”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5162(2), added subsec. (c) and struck out former subsec. (c) which read as follows: “Consistent with sections 819, 820, and 856(b) of this title (articles 19, 20, and 56(b)), only general courts-martial have jurisdiction over an offense specified in section 856(b)(2) of this title (article 56(b)(2)).”

2013—Pub. L. 113–66 designated the first two sentences as subsec. (a), designated third sentence as subsec. (b) and substituted “A general court-martial” for “However, a general court-martial”, and added subsec. (c).

1968—Pub. L. 90–632 provided that a general court-martial consisting of only a military judge has no jurisdiction in cases in which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date of 2013 Amendment

Pub. L. 113–66, div. A, title XVII, § 1705(c), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 960, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 856 of this title] shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2013], and apply to offenses specified in section 856(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code (article 56(b)(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), as added by subsection (a)(1), committed on or after that date.”

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 99 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Middendorf v. Henry

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Middendorf v. Henry (1976) scotus · cites it 2× “18, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 818 . Special courts-martial may award a bad-conduct discharge, up to six months' confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for six months, and in the case of an enlisted member, reduction to the lowest pay grade, Art.”

Weiss v. United States (1994) scotus · cites it 2× “18, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 818 . The military judge, a position that has officially existed only since passage of the Military Justice Act of 1968, acts as presiding officer at a special or general court-martial.”

United States v. Ali (2012) armfor · cites it 2× “” Article 18, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 818 (2006); R.C.M. 201(b)(5) (“The offense must be subject to court-martial jurisdiction.”

United States v. Matthews (1983) cma · cites it 3× “See Article 18, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 818 . The judge replied that, absent such a “specific” codal prohibition, he “would have no qualms at all about granting the request of the accused”; but since the Code contains such a prohibition, which he believed to be constitutional, “the…”

United States v. Gaskins (2013) armfor · cites it 2× “§ 819 (2006) (conditioning a special court-martial’s jurisdiction to impose certain punishments on, among other things, the availability of a “complete record” of the proceedings), and Article 18, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 818 (2006) (placing no such limitation on the jurisdiction of a…”

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) scotus “10 U. S. C. §818 . As the Court explains, moreover, while special military commissions have been convened in previous armed conflicts— a practice recognized in §821—those military commissions generally have adopted the structure and procedure of courts-martial.”

United States v. Beaty (2011) armfor · cites it 2× “See Article 18, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 818 (2006). We disagree that there is no limitation upon the maximum punishment for the offense of possessing “what appears to be” child pornography.”

United States v. Nealy (2012) armfor · cites it 2× “Appellant does not argue that the court-martial lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the offense under Article 18, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 818 (2006), or that it lacked personal 6 United States v.”

United States v. Loving (1994) armfor “ISSUE XLIV WHETHER ARTICLE 18, UCMJ, 10 USC § 818 AND RCM 201(F)(1)(C), WHICH REQUIRE TRIAL BY MEMBERS IN A CAPITAL CASE, VIOLATE THE FIFTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS AND A RELIABLE VERDICT.”

United States v. Curtis (1991) cma · cites it 2× “” Article 18, UCMJ, 10 USC § 818 , states that a general court-martial “may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by [the Code], including the penalty of death when specifically authorized by” the Code.”

United States v. Christian (2006) armfor · cites it 2× “Importantly for our present purposes, in Articles 18, 36, and 56, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 818 , 836, and 856, Congress assigned specific responsibilities to the President.”

United States v. Norfleet (2000) armfor · cites it 2× “18, UCMJ, 10 USC § 818 ) general courts-martial); Art.”

Show all 99 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.