Yes, and a jurisdictional challenge is powerful because it goes to the court’s very authority to act, not just to the merits of a charge. A court-martial must have two kinds of jurisdiction, and a defect in either can defeat the prosecution. But one common assumption about military jurisdiction, that the offense must be connected to military service, is no longer the law.
Two kinds of jurisdiction
A court-martial needs both:
- Personal jurisdiction, authority over the person of the accused, which depends on the accused being a member of the armed forces subject to the UCMJ.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction, authority over the offense charged.
A challenge attacks one of these, arguing the court has no power to try this person or this offense.
The status test: Solorio
Here is the point that surprises many people. Under Solorio v. United States (1987), the jurisdiction of a court-martial depends solely on the accused’s status as a member of the armed forces, not on whether the offense was “service-connected.” Solorio overruled the earlier O’Callahan decision, which had required a service connection. So a court-martial can try a service member for an offense even if it was committed off-base and off-duty with no link to military duties, so long as the person had the requisite military status. The test is status, not the nature of the crime.
That reality shapes the challenge: arguing “this had nothing to do with my service” generally will not defeat jurisdiction after Solorio.
Where a challenge can succeed
Because jurisdiction turns on status, the strongest challenges target that:
- Lack of personal jurisdiction, for example, that the person was not actually in a status subject to the UCMJ at the relevant time, or had been validly discharged, so they were not a member when jurisdiction had to exist.
- Defects in how jurisdiction attached or continued, depending on the facts of enlistment, service, and separation.
These are factual, status-based arguments, and where they hold, the court simply lacks authority to proceed.
If a member commits an offense off base and off duty, the court-martial still has jurisdiction under the status test, so a challenge focuses on the member’s status rather than the offense’s connection to service.
The practical upshot is that jurisdiction is about the court’s power, anchored to status. A court-martial needs personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, Solorio makes military status, not service-connection, the test, and a viable challenge therefore focuses on whether the accused actually held the status the UCMJ requires.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must a charged offense be connected to military service?
No. Under Solorio v. United States, court-martial jurisdiction depends solely on the accused’s military status, not on whether the offense was service-connected; the earlier service-connection requirement was overruled.
What two kinds of jurisdiction must a court-martial have?
Personal jurisdiction over the accused, which depends on military status, and subject-matter jurisdiction over the offense charged.
When can a jurisdictional challenge succeed?
Often when the accused lacked the required military status, for example, was not actually subject to the UCMJ at the relevant time or had been validly discharged, so the court had no authority over the person.
This article is general information about court-martial jurisdiction. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.
Sources