- the preemption doctrine generally prohibits using Articles 133 and 134, UCMJ, to charge conduct covered by Articles 80 through 132, UCMJ
- the primary question in applying the preemption doctrine is whether Congress intended to limit prosecution for wrongful conduct within a particular area or field to offenses defined in specific articles of the UCMJ
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.AA · Crimes Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019
Generally
Offenses committed on or after 1 January 2019 (post-2016 amendment) — opinions from the 2021 Term of Court forward.
For offenses before 1 January 2019 see
III.A — Generally.
4 digested opinions, 2021–2023 Terms
2023 (October Term)
- presidentially enumerated elements in Part IV of the MCM standing alone can provide fair notice to servicemembers that certain conduct is criminal
- an appellate court is not bound by the President's interpretation of the elements of substantive offenses; nonetheless, when the President's narrowing construction of a statute does not contradict the express language of a statute, it is entitled to some deference, and the court will not normally disturb that construction
2021 (October Term)
- evidence sometimes may satisfy two elements of an offense
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIAA0 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).