Wilson & Dillon v. Commandant

Most military habeas cases come from those at the USDB, which is in the Federal District of Kansas and the 10th Circuit. We've posted about how tough it is for a military prisoner (or a on-custodial) habeas grant. The two petitioners--Wilson and Dillon--in this consolidated case are no different.

Aaron Wilson and Sean Dillon, both former members of the United States Army, were convicted by court-martial for engaging in sex crimes during their active-duty service. Wilson and Dillon filed habeas petitions, arguing that the statutory grant of military jurisdiction over retired military personnel—particularly, those who have been medically retired—exceeds Congress's authority to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" because, in their view, retirees are no longer part of "the land and naval Forces." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 14 ("Make Rules Clause"). The district court denied their petitions. We affirm.

Huuum, methinks ACCA said something similar recently.

Consistent with most of the retiree prosecutions, Wilson's offenses occurred while on active duty stationed in Korea. I'm not sure Dillon's is actually a retiree case. Dillon's medical retirement orders were revoked four weeks before his scheduled retirement date. Seems to me that was a legal hold.

Steve Vladeck of Larrabee represented Wilson and Dillon. Will the petition the Supremes?

If one of the arguments for continued jurisdiction is that (a significant number of) retirees may be involuntarily recalled to active service, does that argument really make sense for those on PDRL? The other argument--they are getting a check, still persists.