National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
    • Staff
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
    • Staff
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
ABA Model State Code of Military Justice *
​We commend COL Douglas Simon’s, Making the UCMJ More Uniform, The Army Lawyer, No. 3, 2021, to the reader.
 
One goal of reforming state military justice systems is to establish consistency, uniformity, and some degree of alignment with the UCMJ. However, a primary barrier to fully achieving this goal is the current effort to modernize state military justice systems on a state-by-state basis. This is problematic because the fifty-four state and territorial jurisdictions that make up the National Guard have different levels of expertise, motives, and resources to support or adopt a uniform system, either in whole or in part. The divergence of state interests leads to non-uniformity that exposes important questions for states to consider. For instance, and to highlight a few notable and known areas: 1) what is the scope of jurisdiction over National Guard Service members;44 2) what is the applicability of the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE); 3) what is the applicability of the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM); and 4) what appellate courts and procedures (military or civilian) will apply?45 With state appellate courts, will they defer to military precedent when it may conflict with the respective state law or constitution? These important questions fueled the creation of a Military Justice Survey46 to assess the variability with the states’ military justice systems and, equally important, to understand the pace of progress with the adoption of the Model State Code that became available in 2005.
Please note that much has changed in the UCMJ over the last few years. But it appears the state National Guard has yet to fully catch up. Please let us know if our links here are outdated because of recent legislative changes.
Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas
  • AANG Reg. 27-10

California

Colorado

​Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia
  • ​Court-Martial Review Panel

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

​
Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana
Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

​Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont
​
Virginia

​Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

​
Puerto Rico

Guam

U. S. Virgin Islands

American Samoa (not available)

Northern Mariana Islands (not available)
The Posse Comitatus Act and the National Guard.
* We might expect, that as reform continues of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, that the states will in some way follow suit. For example, N. Dakota merely refers you to the UCMJ and RCM of 2010.
Proudly powered by Weebly