The jurisdiction of courts-martial is entirely penal or disciplinary.

“Jurisdiction” means the power to hear a case and to render a legally competent decision. A court-martial has no power to adjudge civil remedies. For example, a court-martial may not adjudge the payment of damages, collect private debts, order the return of property, or order a criminal forfeiture of seized property. A summary court-martial appointed under 10 U.S.C. §§ 4712 or 9712 to dispose of the effects of a deceased person is not affected by these Rules or this Manual.

The UCMJ applies in all places.

Except insofar as required by the Constitution, the UCMJ, or the Manual, such as jurisdiction over persons listed under Article 2(a)(10), jurisdiction of courts-martial does not depend on where the offense was committed.

The jurisdiction of a court-martial with respect to offenses under the UCMJ is not affected by the place where the court-martial sits. The jurisdiction of a court-martial with respect to military government or the law of war is not affected by the place where the court-martial sits except as otherwise expressly required by this Manual or applicable rule of international law.

In addition to the power to try persons for offenses under the UCMJ, general courts-martial have power to try certain persons for violations of the law of war and for crimes or offenses against the law of the territory occupied as an incident of war or belligerency whenever the local civil authority is superseded in whole or part by the military authority of the occupying power. See R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(B). In cases where a person is tried by general court-martial for offenses against the law of an occupied territory, the court-martial normally sits in the country where the offense is committed, and must do so under certain circumstances. See Articles 4, 64, and 66, Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 3559-60 T.I.A.S. No. 3365.

A court-martial always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Otherwise for a court-martial to have jurisdiction:

The court-martial must be convened by an official empowered to convene it;

See R.C.M. 504; 1302.

The court-martial must be composed in accordance with these rules with respect to number and qualifications of its personnel. As used here “personnel” includes only the military judge, the members, and the summary court-martial;

See R.C.M. 501-504; 1301.

Each charge before the court-martial must be referred to it by competent authority;

See R.C.M. 601; see also R.C.M. 307. A commanding officer shall not be considered an accuser under Article 1(9) solely due to the role of the commanding officer in convening a general court-martial or a special court-martial to which charges and specifications were referred by a special trial counsel pursuant to Article 22(b) for general courts-martial or Article 23(b) for special courts-martial, as amended by Section 534 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-81, 135 Stat. 1541, 1696 (2021).

The accused must be a person subject to court-martial jurisdiction; and

See R.C.M. 202.

The offense must be subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

See R.C.M. 203. The judgment of a court-martial without jurisdiction is void and is entitled to no legal effect. See R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(C)(iv). But see R.C.M. 810(d) concerning the effect of certain decisions by courts-martial without jurisdiction.

[Reserved].

Courts-martial have exclusive jurisdiction of purely military offenses.

An act of omission that violates both the UCMJ and local criminal law, foreign or domestic, may be tried by a court-martial, or by a proper civilian tribunal, foreign or domestic, or, subject to R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(C) and regulations of the Secretary concerned, by both.

Where an act or omission is subject to trial by court-martial and by one or more civil tribunals, foreign or domestic, the determination which nation, state, or agency will exercise jurisdiction is a matter for the nations, states, and agencies concerned, and is not a right of the suspect or accused.

In the case of an act or omission that violates the UCMJ and a criminal law of a State, the United States, or both, the determination which agency shall exercise jurisdiction should normally be made through consultation or prior agreement between appropriate military officials and appropriate civilian authorities (United States Attorney, or equivalent). See also Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Defense Relating to the Investigation and Prosecution of Certain at Appendix 3; Memorandum of Understanding Between the Departments of Justice and Transportation (Coast Guard) Relating to the Investigations and Prosecution of Crimes Over Which the Two Departments Have Concurrent Jurisdiction at Appendix 4. Under the Constitution, a person generally may not be tried for the same misconduct by both a court-martial and another federal court. See R.C.M. 907(b)(2)(C). Although it is constitutionally permissible to try a person by court-martial and by a state court for the same act, as a matter of policy, a person who is pending trial or has been tried by a state court should not ordinarily be tried by court-martial for the same act. International agreements might preclude trial by one state party to the treaty of a person acquitted or finally convicted of a given act by another state party. Under international law, a friendly foreign nation has jurisdiction to punish offenses committed within its borders by members of a visiting force, unless it expressly or impliedly consents to relinquish its jurisdiction to the visiting sovereign. The procedures and standards for determining which nation will exercise jurisdiction are normally established by treaty. See, e.g ., NATO Status of Forces Agreement, June 19, 1951, 4 U.S.T. 1792, T.I.A.S. No. 2846. As a matter of policy, efforts should be made to maximize the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over persons subject to the UCMJ to the extent possible under applicable agreements. See R.C.M. 106 concerning delivery of offenders to civilian authorities. See also R.C.M. 201(g) concerning the jurisdiction of other military tribunals.

Each armed force has court-martial jurisdiction over all persons subject to the UCMJ. (2)(A) A commander of a unified or specified combatant command may convene courts-martial over members of any of the armed forces. (B) So much of the authority vested in the President under Article 22(a)(9), to empower any commanding officer of a joint command or joint task force to convene courts-martial is delegated to the Secretary of Defense, and such a commanding officer may convene general courts-martial for the trial of members of any of the armed forces assigned or attached to a combatant command or joint command. (C) A commander who is empowered to convene a court-martial under subparagraphs (e)(2)(A) or (e)(2)(B) of this rule may expressly authorize a commanding officer of a subordinate joint command or subordinate joint task force who is authorized to convene special and summary courts-martial to convene such courts-martial for the trial of members of other armed forces assigned or attached to a joint command or joint task force, under regulations that the superior command may prescribe. (3)(A) An accused should not ordinarily be tried by a court-martial convened by a member of a different armed force except when the circumstances described in subparagraphs (e)(2)(A) or (B) of this rule exist. However, failure to comply with this non-binding policy does not affect an otherwise valid referral. (B) The non-binding policy stated by subparagraph (e)(3)(A) of this rule does not apply when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

The court-martial is convened by a commander authorized to convene courts-martial under paragraph (e)(2) of this rule;

The accused cannot be delivered to the armed force of which the accused is a member without manifest injury to the armed forces;

The court-martial is convened by a member of the Space Force to try a member of the Air Force; or

The court-martial is convened by a member of the Air Force to try a member of the Space Force. (4) Nothing in this rule prohibits detailing to a court-martial a military judge, member, or counsel who is a member of an armed force different from that of the accused, the convening authority, or both. (5) When a member of one armed force is tried by a court-martial convened by a member of another armed force, the court-martial will use the implementing regulations and procedures prescribed by the Secretary concerned of the military service of the accused. In all cases, departmental review after that by the officer with authority to convene a general court-martial for the command that held the trial, where that review is required by the UCMJ, shall be carried out by the department that includes the armed force of which the accused is a member. (6) Unless otherwise directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, whenever action under this Manual is required or authorized to be taken by a person superior to—

a commander of a unified or specified combatant command; or

a commander of any other joint command or joint task force that is not part of a unified or specified combatant command, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of the armed force of which the accused is a member. The Secretary may convene a court-martial, take other appropriate action, or, subject to R.C.M. 504(c), refer the matter to any person authorized to convene a court-martial of the accused. (7) When there is a disagreement between the Secretaries of two military departments or between the Secretary of a military department and the commander of a unified or specified combatant command or other joint command or joint task force as to which organization should exercise jurisdiction over a particular case or class of cases, the Secretary of Defense or an official acting under the authority of the Secretary of Defense shall designate which organization will exercise jurisdiction.

As to the authority to convene courts-martial, see R.C.M. 504. “Manifest injury” does not mean minor inconvenience or expense. Examples of manifest injury include direct and substantial effect on morale, discipline, or military operations, substantial expense or delay, or loss of essential witnesses. As to the composition of a court-martial for the trial of an accused who is a member of another armed force, see R.C.M. 503(a)(3) Discussion. Cases involving two or more accused who are members of different armed forces generally should not be referred to a court-martial for a common trial.

[Note: R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(D) and (f)(2)(D) apply to offenses committed on or after 24 June 2014.]

Except as otherwise expressly provided, general courts-martial may try any person subject to the UCMJ for any offense made punishable under the UCMJ. General courts-martial also may try any person for a violation of Article 103, 103b, or 104a.

Upon a finding of guilty of an offense made punishable by the UCMJ, general courts-martial may, within limits prescribed by this Manual, adjudge any punishment authorized under R.C.M. 1003.

Notwithstanding any other rule, the death penalty may not be adjudged if:

Not specifically authorized for the offense by the UCMJ and Part IV of this Manual; or

The case has not been referred with a special instruction that the case is to be tried as capital.

General courts-martial may try any person who by the law of war is subject to trial by military tribunal for any crime or offense against:

The law of war; or

The law of the territory occupied as an incident of war or belligerency whenever the local civil authority is superseded in whole or part by the military authority of the occupying power. The law of the occupied territory includes the local criminal law as adopted or modified by competent authority, and the proclamations, ordinances, regulations, or orders promulgated by competent authority of the occupying power.

R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(B)(i)(b) is an exercise of the power of military government.

When a general court-martial exercises jurisdiction under the law of war, it may adjudge any punishment permitted by the law of war.

Certain limitations on the discretion of military tribunals to adjudge punishment under the law of war are prescribed in international conventions. See , e . g ., Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, art. 68, 6 U.S.T. 3516, T.I.A.S. No. 3365.

A general court-martial composed only of a military judge does not have jurisdiction to try any person for any offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has been referred to trial as noncapital.

See R.C.M. 103(4) for the definition of the term “capital offense.”

Only a general court-martial has jurisdiction to try offenses under Articles 120(a), 120(b), 120b(a), and 120b(b), and attempts thereof under Article 80.

Only a general court-martial has jurisdiction over penetrative sex offenses under subsections (a) and (b) of Article 120, subsections (a) and (b) of Article 120b, and attempts to commit such penetrative sex offenses under Article 80. See Article 18, as amended by Section 1705(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013), as further amended by Section 5162 of the Military Justice Act of 2016, Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016).

Except as otherwise expressly provided, special courts-martial may try any person subject to the UCMJ for any noncapital offense made punishable by the UCMJ and, as provided in this rule, for capital offenses.

Punishments

Upon a finding of guilty, special courts-martial may adjudge, under limitations prescribed by this Manual, any punishment authorized under R.C.M. 1003 except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than 1 year, hard labor without confinement for more than 3 months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay for more than 1 year.

A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, may not be adjudged by a special court-martial when the case is referred as a special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2)(A).

A capital offense for which there is prescribed a mandatory punishment beyond the punitive power of a special court-martial shall not be referred to such a court-martial.

Other than offenses described in (C)(i):

a general court-martial convening authority over the command that includes the accused may permit any capital offense to be referred to a special court-martial for trial.

a special trial counsel exercising authority over a capital offense may refer such an offense to a special court-martial for trial.

The Secretary concerned may authorize, by regulation, special court-martial convening authorities to refer capital offenses to trial by a special court-martial without first obtaining the consent of the general court-martial convening authority.

Notwithstanding subparagraph (f)(2)(A), special courts-martial do not have jurisdiction over offenses under Articles 120(a), 120(b), 120b(a), and 120b(b), and attempts thereof under Article 80. Such offenses shall not be referred to a special court-martial.

Only a general court-martial has jurisdiction over penetrative sex offenses under subsections (a) and (b) of Article 120, subsections (a) and (b) of Article 120b, and attempts to commit such penetrative sex offenses under Article 80. See UCMJ, Art. 18, as amended by Section 1705(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013), as further amended by Section 5162 of the Military Justice Act of 2016, Division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016).

No specification may be tried by a special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2)(A) if, before arraignment, the accused objects on the grounds provided in subclause (I) or (II) of this subparagraph and the military judge determines that:

the maximum authorized confinement for the offense it alleges would be greater than two years if the offense were tried by a general court-martial, with the exception of a specification alleging wrongful use or possession of a controlled substance in violation of Article 112a(b) or an attempt thereof under Article 80; or

the specification alleges an offense for which sex offender notification would be required under regulations issued by the Secretary of Defense.

See Department of Defense Instruction 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority, for offenses requiring sex offender notification.

If the accused objects to trial by a special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2)(A), and the military judge makes a determination under clause (i), trial may be ordered by a special court-martial under Article 16(c)(1) or a general court-martial as may be appropriate.

See R.C.M. 1301(c) and (d)(1).

The provisions of the UCMJ and this Manual conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals.

See Articles 103 and 103b for some instances of concurrent jurisdiction.