10 U.S.C. § 819

Art. 19. Jurisdiction of special courts-martial

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

(a)In General.—Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17), special courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject to this chapter for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter and, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, for capital offenses. Special courts-martial may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than one year, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay for more than one year.(b)Additional Limitation.—Neither a bad-conduct discharge, nor confinement for more than six months, nor forfeiture of pay for more than six months may be adjudged if charges and specifications are referred to a special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under section 816(c)(2)(A) of this title (article 16(c)(2)(A)).(c)Military Magistrate.—If charges and specifications are referred to a special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under section 816(c)(2)(A) of this title (article 16(c)(2)(A)), the military judge, with the consent of the parties, may designate a military magistrate to preside over the special court-martial.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 43; Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(5), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1335; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title V, § 577(a), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 625; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, § 1048(g)(4), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1228; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LIV, § 5163, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2898.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
819	50:579.	May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 19), 64 Stat. 114.

The word “shall” in the first sentence is omitted as surplusage. The words “for more than” are substituted for the words “in excess of”. The words “more than” are substituted for the words “a period exceeding”. The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall” in the last sentence.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and inserted heading, struck out “A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months may not be adjudged unless a complete record of the proceedings and testimony has been made, counsel having the qualifications prescribed under section 827(b) of this title (article 27(b)) was detailed to represent the accused, and a military judge was detailed to the trial, except in any case in which a military judge could not be detailed to the trial because of physical conditions or military exigencies. In any such case in which a military judge was not detailed to the trial, the convening authority shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the record, stating the reason or reasons a military judge could not be detailed.” after “one year.”, and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

2001—Pub. L. 107–107, § 1048(g)(4), amended directory language of Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(2). See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(2), as amended by Pub. L. 107–107, § 1048(g)(4), inserted “, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months” after “A bad-conduct discharge” in third sentence.

Pub. L. 106–65, § 577(a)(1), substituted “one year” for “six months” in two places in second sentence.

1968—Pub. L. 90–632 provided that before a bad-conduct discharge may be adjudged by a special court-martial the accused must be detailed counsel who is legally qualified under the Code and a military judge must be detailed to the trial, with a detailed written statement appended to the record if a military judge was not detailed to the trial, because of physical conditions and military exigencies, stating the reasons that a military judge could not be so detailed.

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 2001 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, § 1048(g), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1228, provided that the amendment made by section 1048(g)(4) is effective as of Oct. 5, 1999, and as if included in Pub. L. 106–65 as enacted.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title V, § 577(b), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 625, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the first day of the sixth month beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 1999] and shall apply with respect to charges referred on or after that effective date to trial by special courts-martial.”

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 146 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Gurson Gourzong v. Attorney General United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gurson Gourzong v. Attorney General United States (2016) ca3 · cites it 12× “” 10 U.S.C. § 819 . However, they may not impose the penalties of “death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than one year, hard labor without confinement for more than three months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or forfeiture of pay…”

Denedo v. United States (2008) armfor · cites it 2× “See Article 19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 819 (1994), amended by National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub.”

Middendorf v. Henry (1976) scotus · cites it 2× “19, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 819 . Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused's commanding officer, is an administrative *32 method of dealing with the most minor offenses.”

Weiss v. United States (1994) scotus · cites it 2× “19, UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 819 . The general court-martial consists of either a military judge and at least five members, or the judge alone if the accused so requests.”

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) scotus “201(f)(2)(B)(ii) (likewise requiring a military judge for certain other courts-martial); 10 U. S. C. § 819 (2000 ed. and Supp. Ill) (same).”

United States v. New (2001) armfor · cites it 2× “19, UCMJ, 10 USC § 819 (as amended Oct. 5, 1999). These provisions and the historical functions of a court-martial panel underscore our conclusion that when Congress inserted the word "lawful" in the statutes governing disobedience, it was addressing the judicial role of the…”

Parisi v. Davidson (1972) scotus · cites it 2× “In 1968, the Code was amended by the Military Justice Act, 10 U. S. C. § 819 , to improve court-martial and review procedures.”

United States v. Sturdivant (1976) cma · cites it 2× “Article 19, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 819 ; United States v. Whitney, 23 U.”

United States v. Tualla (2000) armfor · cites it 2× “Article 19, UCMJ, 10 USC § 819 , provides broad authority for special courts-martial to "adjudge any punishment not forbidden" by the UCMJ "under such regulations as the President may prescribe.”

United States v. Stoffer (2000) armfor · cites it 2× “19, UCMJ, 10 USC § 819 ; RCM 1103(b)(2)(B)(ii). The Court of Criminal Appeals found, pursuant to its Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866 (c)(1994), factfinding power that "a SJAR existed and was relied upon by the convening authority, in accordance with Article 60(d), Uniform Code…”

United States v. Norfleet (2000) armfor · cites it 2× “19, UCMJ, 10 USC § 819 (precluding adjudication of a bad-conduct discharge by a special court-martial unless a military judge presided, with limited exceptions); Art.”

United States v. Gaskins (2013) armfor “7 Compare Article 19, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 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.”

Show all 146 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.